Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Jharkhand vs Deepak Kumar on 28 March, 2019
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).8706 OF 2009
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR SAH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Pursuant to the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand, the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Dhanbad appointed the respondent provisionally in the post of work-charge, Godown Chowkidar, Dhanbad in the pay scale of Rs.2550-50-2660-60-3200/- The said order was passed by taking into account the fact that the respondent worked for more than 240 days prior to 1.8.1985 and according to the policy, he was entitled to be given preference for the regular appointment. The said order was found to have been illegally passed by the Superintending Engineer Building Circle, Dhanbad and hence, was withdrawn on 18.4.2001. The appointment of the respondent was cancelled.
We are informed by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Signature Not Verified learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2019.03.30 10:40:46 IST Reason: Jharkhand that disciplinary action was initiated against the officer in-charge for passing the said order dated 2 10.2.2001 by which the respondent was appointed.
The writ petition filed by the respondent aggrieved by the cancellation of his appointment was dismissed by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. The learned single Judge of the High Court found that at the most, the respondent was entitled only for a preference to be given for regular appointment but not regularisation. The learned single judge held that the respondent has no right for seeking regularization.
The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the continuance of the respondent in service with consequential benefits. There was a further direction to the appellant to regularise the services of the respondent. The Division Bench observed that the documents filed on behalf of the appellant would show that the respondent completed more than 240 days prior to 1.8.1985 and was entitled to be considered for regularization on regular basis.
The judgment of the High Court was stayed by order of this Court dated 9.5.2008. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel submits that the respondent must have attained the age of superannuation and there cannot be any reinstatement of the respondent at this stage. The respondent was, in any event, entitled for consideration of his case for regularization in accordance with the 3 prevailing policy. It is clear from the documents that were placed before us that he had completed more than 240 days before 1.8.1985. At this stage, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement and regularization. However, we are of the opinion that the respondent has to be compensated as he has suffered due to the inaction on the part of the appellant in not considering his case in accordance with the policy decision.
We, therefore, direct the appellant-State to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the deprivation of his right of being considered for appointment to a regular post. This matter shall not be treated as a precedent.
The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
....................J (L. NAGESWARA RAO) ....................J (M.R. SHAH) NEW DELHI;
28th MARCH,2019
4
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).8706/2009
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DEEPAK KUMAR SAH Respondent(s)
Date : 28-03-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR Mr. Jayesh Gourav,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kaushik Poddar,Adv.
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Gautam Singh,Adv.
Ms. Isha Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(B.PARVATHI) (KAILASH CHANDER) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)