The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 1289 of 2023 Alpana Kumari @ Alpana Devi, aged about 51 years, wife of Basuki Nath Mishra, resident of Jharna Colony, P.O. Sahebganj, Petitioner P.S. Jirwabari, District Sahebganj … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannath Purr, District Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Health and Medical Science, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannath Purr, District Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Rural Health Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Health Committee, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, Dsitrict Sahebganj 5. Medical Officer, In-charge, Primary Health Centre, Barhet, Sahebganj, P.O., P.S. and District Sahebganj 6. Medical Officer, I/c Primary Health Centre, Barharwa, Sahebganj, … Respondents P.O., P.S. and District Sahebganj … CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Kanchan Lata, Advocate : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, Advocate 04/04.07.2023 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i) To direct the respondents, specially respondent No. 4, to forthwith make payment of honorarium for the period 25.7.2012 to 6.4.2016 which has not been paid to the petitioner (after deduction of paid amount of Rs. 72,000/-), as well as daily wages from 7.4.2016 to till date, as the petitioner was appointed, in terms of Memo No. 439 dated 9.3.2011 issued by the respondent No. 4 (Annexure-2) on contract basis, in accordance with law in pursuance of Notification issued by the Respondent No.4 and petitioner gave her joining on 4.4.2011 under the respondent No.5 (Annexure-3) and worked there upto 24.7.2012 (Annexure-3/1) and on transfer she worked at Primary Health Centre Kotal Pokhar from 25.7.2012 to 6.4.2016 on contract basis (Annexure-4) and thereafter continuing till date under the respondent No.6 as will appear from Annexure-10, on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and agreement was executed upto 7.11.2015 for the period from 7.4.2015 to 6.4.2016, but thereafter despite furnishing copy of agreement, no agreement has been executed from the side of respondent No.4 and further requested to make payment of remaining period, i.e. 7.4.2016 to till date, as she is regularly working against the post (Annexure-10) on daily wages as she has not been removed from the of Cleaner as yet; 2 ii) For the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner pursuant to regularization scheme of the Government of Jharkhand as Notified, vide Memo No. 1348 dated 13.2.2015 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, wherein it has been resolved to regularize the services of those daily wages employees who have been working since last 10-15 years, and also in view of the fact that the petitioner is working under the respondents since last 12 years as female worker (Cleaner/Sweeper), after her Joining on 4.4.2011, vide order containing Memo No.663 dated 4.4.2011 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent No.4 and she is working with entire of her superiors, but despite her satisfactory performance, her services has not been recommended for regularization by respondent No. 4 in the facts and circumstances of the case; iii) For further issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents, specially respondent No.4, not to discontinue the services of petitioner from the post on which she is working since last more than 12 years as female worker (Cleaner/Sweeper) under the respondent No.4, vide Annexures-3 and 10 of this application and also direct the respondents to pay equal pay for equal works as has been granted to similarly situated employee under the respondent No. 1; And/Or the For issuance of any other writ/writs, Order/ orders or direction/directions as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the rejoinder during the course of hearing, which is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been working under the respondent-authority, but payment is not being made to the petitioner regularly and the petitioner is also seeking regularization of services and her grievance is that in spite of satisfactory performance, her services has not been recommended for regularization by the respondent No. 4. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, is not in a position to respond to the query of this Court as to who has been making payment to the petitioner. She submits that the amount is credited in the bank account of the petitioner, but the petitioner is not aware as to who credits the amount in her bank amount. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been working under District Rural Health Society through outsourcing agency as per the policy of the Government till date and that the petitioner is getting the remuneration regularly through the outsourcing agency and the outsourcing agency has also 3 issued a certificate annexed with the counter-affidavit that the remuneration to the petitioner has been paid up to date. 7. learned counsel for After hearing the the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears from the records that the petitioner has been working through the outsourcing agency and as per the certificate issued by the outsourcing agency, the petitioner has been paid the amount till January, 2023. 8. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass any mandamus upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as prayed for in this writ petition. 9. So far as the remuneration/salary/wages is concerned, although it has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the entire remuneration has been paid up till January, 2023, but the petitioner is entitled for the entire details in connection with such payment month wise. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to payment of remaining remuneration, the petitioner can raise grievance before the respondent No. 4, who in consultation with the outsourcing agency, shall take appropriate steps so that legitimate dues of the petitioner, if any, be ultimately paid to the petitioner by the
Decision
outsourcing agency. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)