Jharkhand High Court
Abhimanyu Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 11 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2004(2)JCR521(JHR)], 2005 LAB IC (NOC) 44 (JHA), 2005 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1367, (2004) 2 JLJR 450, (2004) 2 JCR 521 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to reappoint the petitioner on Class III post of Health Educator in the light of the judgment and order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8336 of 1997, Arun Kumar Raut and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., on the ground that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to that of Arun Kr. Raut and others.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on 1.6.1988 alongwith 20 others on daily wages to meet the urgent requirement of manpower to combat the epidemic (Diarrhoea and Vomit-ting) spread in the area. Subsequently, the petitioner as well as other i.e., altogether 31 persons were regularised in service against permanent vacant post of Clerk/Health Eduator on 3.4.1989 and since thereafter the petitioner started working on regular basis.
3. On 10.9.1993, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, issued cyclostyle notices to all the 31 employees including the petitioner to show cause as to why their absorption from daily wagers to permanent establishment be not cancelled as the same was against the norms. The petitioner as Well as others submitted their show cause and thereafter the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Dumka, without placing the cases of the petitioner and others before the Establishment Committee, issued order of termination from service of the petitioners and others on 14.10.1993 videAnnexure-4.
4. Against the said order of termination dated 14.10.1993 the petitioner filed CWJC No. 13146 of 1993, while the other 20 similarly situated persons filed CWJC No. 13034 of 1993 Arun Kumar Raut and others v. State of Bihar and others.
5. It is stated that the aforesaid CWJC No. 13043 of 1993 filed by Arun Kumar Raut and others was dismissed by a Division Bench on 23.9.1994, whereas, the writ application filed by the petitioner was heard and dismissed on 31.3.1995 by a single Bench vide Annexure-5. It is further stated that Arun Kumar Raut and others, moved before the Supreme Court against the order of dismissal of their writ application in SLP (C) No. 2339 of 1995 because their writ application was dismissed by a Division Bench, whereas, since the writ application of the petitioner was dismissed by a Single Bench and, therefore, he filed LPA No. 385 of 1995, which as also dismissed by a Division Bench on 27.2.1997.
6. It is further stated that in the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2439 of 1995 filed by Arun Kumar Raut and others was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court on 20.11.1997 in Civil Appeal No. 8336 of 1997. The said judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 17 (SC).
7. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, it appears that in the said case, following observations were made :--
"Although the appellants had not been appointed by following the due procedure and, therefore, they cannot claim regularisation as a matter of course but considering the fact that they had satisfactorily served the department even without getting any salary for a long time and they were not guilty of any fraud or sham practice and also did not lack in requisite qualification and they had been appointed against sanctioned posts, we feel that the appellants deserve sympathetic consideration in getting appointment against such sanctioned posts on humane consideration, Considering the special facts of the appeal it appears to us that it will be just and proper consistent with ends of justice to direct that 50 per cent of the sanctioned posts which were held by these appellants should be filled from amongst the appellants on the basis of their inter se merit position by taking into account their academic qualifications by waiving question of age bar if any and usual procedure for such appointment. The remaining 50 per cent of the said sanctioned posts, will be filled up on regular basis by throwing it open to the members of the public and following the procedure prescribed for such appointment in the State of Bihar. The remaining appellants who will not be absorbed against 50 per cent of the said sanctioned posts will be entitled to compute for appointment in the balance 50 per cent posts alongwith other eligible candidates but they will not be treated unsuitable on account of age bar. On the contrary, in the matter of assessment of merit they will be given a credit of 25 per cent marks for the experience they have gained for services rendered by them for the said long period of 5 years or more."
8. It has not been disputed that in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court dated 20.11.1997, Arun Kumar Raut and 19 others were reappointed on their respective posts, which they were holding prior to the date of their termination. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his case is exactly same to that of Arun Kumar Raut and others but the case of the petitioner was not considered for reappointment. Accordingly, the prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to reap-point the petitioner applying the judgment of the Supreme Court as aforesaid.
9. In spite of the opportunity given to the respondent to file counter-affidavit, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
10. Considering the averments made in the writ application and the submissions made on behalf of the parties I find that the case of the petitioner is exactly similarly situated to that of Arun Kumar Raut and 19 others, who were the appellant before the Supreme Court and have been re-appointed, and as such, I find no reason as to why the respondents will not give the same treatment to the petitioner, in the matter of future appointment.
11. Accordingly, I direct the respondents including the Divisional Commissioner, Dumka and others to treat the petitioners on the same footing to that of Arun Kumar Raut and 19 others in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court and give the same benefit to the petitioner which has been given to Arun Kumar Raut and 19 others.
12. With the above observation and direction this application is disposed of.