(R) ----- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution v. The State of Jharkhand & others
Case Details
C.W.J.C. No. 2682 of 1998(R) with C.W.J.C. No. 2719 of 1998(R) ----- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ------ Adit Singh …………… Petitioner ( in CWJC No. 2682/98) Kamal Kachap ................... Petitioner (in CWJC No. 2719/98) Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ……… Respondents (in both cases) ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Delip Jerath, Sr. Advocate, R.Kumar, A.Kumar, V.K.Vashishtha & Amit Kumar For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Srijit Choudhary, G.A., Rakesh Kr. Shahi & Mr. B.N.Tiwary, J.C. to G.P. II Present: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH ----------- By Court:- Heard counsel for the parties. 2.
Decision
Since, both the writ petitions arises out of the same order, accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The grievances of the petitioners have arisen on account of the order dated 14.2.1997 issued by the respondent no. 4, the Regional Director, Animal Husbandary Department, Ranchi by which their services have been terminated . They seek reinstatement in service upon quashing of the said order. Petitioner No. 1, Adit Singh , admittedly was appointed on 26.11.1991 whereas petitioner no. 2, Kamal Kachap was appointed on 12.12.1994 in the department of Animal Husbandry in the erstwhile Government of Bihar by the order of the respondent no.6, The District Animal Husbandry Officer. The services of petitioner no.1 was confirmed on 14.1.1994 w.e.f. 1.1.1991 and the services of petitioner no.2 was extended till further order vide order dated 5.8.1995. However, petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 23.12.1996, which they replied vide letter dated 24.1.1997 giving details of their appointment said to have been made by the competent authority from the panel of names from the district panel. However, after filing of the reply 2 they have been removed from their service vide order dated 14.2.1997 ( Annexure-4) holding that their appointment was purely temporary and provisional and had been made after the issuance of the circular dated 28.10.1991 and as such they are terminated with immediate effect. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submit that it was indicated in the said order itself that petitioners would be paid the salary for the period till 31.12.1996. It is further submitted that the arrears of salary till the period they have worked before the order of termination has not been paid to them as yet despite the interim order passed earlier dated 17.5.1999 and 21.4.1999 respectively. 4. Counsel for the respondent- State submits that the appointment of the petitioners on Class-IV post in the Animal Husbandry department was made wholly without jurisdiction by the authority, who did not have the power to do so. It is submitted that by a conscious decision of the State Government containing in circular dated 28.10.1991, the earlier letter dated 4.7.1987 granting power to the Regional Deputy Director of the Animal Husbandry Department to make appointment of Class IV and III Staff was withdrawn and the earlier circular was superseded. Appointment of the petitioners were admittedly made on 26.11.1991 and 12.12.1994 respectively, i.e. after the said authority and power had been withdrawn from the Regional Deputy Director of the Animal Husbandry Department of the erstwhile Government of Bihar. However, it is also not in dispute that the petitioners in fact were not appointed by the Regional Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department rather they were appointed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, as per their own statement made in para 5 of the writ petition and vide letter dated 14.1.1994 the Regional Joint Director, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi has confirmed the services of petitioner no.1 and vide order dated 5.8.1995, services of petitioner no.2 was extended till further orders. Counsel for the respondent- State also submitted that the very issue were squarely under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Upendra 3 Narayan Singh & others reported in 2009(5) SCC 65 where the issue relating to the effect of the circular dated 28.10.1991 was in question. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment set aside the order passed by the Patna High Court by which the employees concerned were directed to be reinstated as the initial appointment of the employees i.e. the respondents, therein concerned were found to be illegal and perverse. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the relevant materials on record. The admitted case of the petitioners is that they were appointed by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Gumla on 26.11.1991 and 12.12.1994 respectively. The circular dated 28.10.1991 superseded earlier circular dated 4.7.1987 by which power was conferred upon the Regional Deputy Director of the Animal Husbandry Department to make appointment to Class-III and IV post. In such circumstances, the termination of the petitioners' appointment vide order dated 14.2.1997 holding to be in teeth of the said circular dated 28.10.1991 does not suffers for errors of law as well as on facts. The aforesaid issue is also squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vrs. Upendra Narayan Singh(Supra). Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 5. So far as contention of the petitioners relating to the payment of salary till January 1996 is concerned, the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit filed on 26.3.2001 have stated in para 3 to 5 that the petitioners had been found to be working till December, 1995 and have been paid salary for the said period. This fact has, however not been rejoined by the petitioner though by filing an interlocutory application dated 27.6.2001 they have claimed salary for the period from January 1996 to February, 1997. However, petitioner has not been able to furnish any proof in the said I.A relating to the discharge of the duties / work for the said period in contradistinction to the specific statement made in the supplementary counter 4 affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. In these circumstances, petitioners have failed to show any proof that they had actually discharged their duty from January, 1996 to February, 1997. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the impugned orders as also no direction for payment of arrear either can be made in the writ applications. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi The 4th day of April 2013 A. Mohanty