The Inspector General of Police (Prison), Department of Home v. Ranchi
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1417 of 2022 Umesh Paswan … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Inspector General of Police (Prison), Department of Home, Versus Ranchi. 3. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka. With W.P.(S) No. 1430 of 2022 … … Respondents Ram Binay Sharma … … Petitioner 4. The State of Jharkhand 5. The Inspector General of Police (Prison), Department of Home, Versus Ranchi. 6. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Dhanbad. … … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ : : Ms. Divya, AC to SC-III For the Petitioners For the Respondents Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, AC to GP-V ------ 6/ 04.07.2023 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner-Umesh Paswan and petitioner-Ram Binay Sharma have thrown challenge the order No. 54 dated 3.9.2021 and order No. 47A dated 7.9.2021, whereby they have been treated as fresh appointee from 3.9.2021 and 7.9.2021 respectively as Warden, instead of 8.12.1984, i.e. the initial date of appointment and they have prayed to direct the respondents to treat and regularise them from the initial date of joining i.e. 08.12.1984. 3. The petitioners, along with thirty-six others, were initially appointed as Warden on 08.12.1984 in the erstwhile State of Bihar on adhoc basis and since then, they were discharging their duties wherever they were posted in different jails. On 16.01.1994, the Jail Superintendent, Bhagalpur passed an order for regularizing the service of Warden, wherein, the name of petitioner-Ram Binay Sharma appears at serial no. 33 and petitioner-Umesh Paswan appears at serial no. 35. Thereafter, a 2 Selection Committee was constituted by the Inspector General of Police, which examined the matter and found certain irregularities in the order of regularisation dated 16.01.1994 and the persons including the petitioners were directed to appear before the Selection Committee again, which was challenged by the petitioners and others in CWJC No. 998 of 1997, wherein, the Patna High Court vide order dated 7.8.1998 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. Pursuant to direction passed by the Patna High Court, the petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee, but no order has been passed. After bifurcation of the unified State of Bihar, the services of the petitioners were allocated to the Successor State of Jharkhand. The petitioners thereafter moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5074 of 2009 for consideration of their cases for regularization. This Court by order dated 18.06.2018 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation with all consequential benefits. Even a contempt application, being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 397 of 2019 was also filed, which was ultimately dropped vide order dated 18.02.2022. During pendency of the contempt application, though the case of the petitioners was considered, but it was only with effect from 3.9.2021 and 7.9.2021, orders were passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka and Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Dhanbad whereby the petitioners were treated as fresh appointees with effect from 3.9.2021 and 7.9.2021 respectively, instead of their regularisation from the date of their initial appointments. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have compelled to move this Court. 4. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 8.12.1984 or at least with effect from 16.01.1994, when the earlier regularisation order was passed. Learned counsel also submits that during service period, service books of the petitioners were opened and the amounts towards GPF was also deducted and they were given regular increments as well as DA like the permanent employee. Learned counsel further submits that similar persons, who were appointed along with the petitioners on 08.12.1984 and whose 3 services were allocated to the successor State of Bihar after bifurcation, moved before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 16376 of 2011, decided on 18.05.2012, wherein, the Court was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of that petitioners for regularisation with effect from 16.1.1994. Learned counsel submits that these facts were never considered by the respondents while passing the order impugned. 5. Ms. Divya, learned AC to SC-III and Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, learned AC to GP-V, representing the respondent-State opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, empathically argue that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment on the ground that they were appointed as Daily Wager. They further argue that it is always prerogative of the respondents and it is not right of the employees to ask for regularisation, when the appointment itself was based on contractual basis / temporary / daily wager. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were considered as fresh appointee with effect from 3.9.2021 and 7.9.2021 respectively and no consideration can be done and the same has been accepted by the petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the instant writ petitions does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Admittedly the petitioners were appointed and working from 08.12.1984 in a temporary capacity. (ii) The petitioners were regularised on the direction of the Home Department and the order was issued on 16.1.1994 under the signature of Superintendent of Jail, Bhagalpur. (iii) Thereafter, Selection Committee having found some irregularities in the order of regularization, directed the petitioners and others to appear before the selection committee. (iv) Aggrieved thereby, the employees knocked the door of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 10910 of 1994, wherein, it was observed 4 that directing the petitioners to face fresh selection ten years after appointment, especially when regularisation had been ordered on 16.1.1994 is incongruous and unrasonable. It is never the case of the respondents that regularisation order dated 16.1.1994 was invalid for specified reasons. (v) When the cases of those employees, whose services were allocated to the successor State of Bihar, were not considered for regularisation from the specified dates, the employees moved before the Patna High Court once again in CWJC No. 16376 of 2011, wherein, specific direction was given by the Patna High Court to the respondents to consider the case of those petitioners for regularisation from 16.1.1994 itself. (vi) It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the case of petitioners of CWJC No. 16376 of 2011 have already been considered for regularization with effect from 16.1.1994 with all consequential benefits by the State of Bihar. (vii) Hence, in the facts of this case, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer only on the ground that after bifurcation, their services have been allocated to the Successor State of Jharkhand. By coming to the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners have not committed any crime. When similarly situated persons have already been granted regularization from the date of their initial appointment, the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit. (viii) The respondents were aware of the fact that the petitioners are going to superannuate in near future, just to frustrate the order of regularization, the petitioners have been considered for fresh appointment. This shows the callous approach of the respondents. (ix) Admittedly, the petitioners have worked for more than 35 years. Their past services cannot be wiped out only for the reasons that they have been allocated to the Successor State of Jharkhand. If the petitioners would have been in the State of Bihar, they would have been considered for regularisation way back along with their 5 colleagues. The action of the respondents amounts to discrimination in the eyes of law. 7. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, the impugned orders dated 3.9.2021 and
Decision
7.9.2021 passed in both the writ petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization with effect from 16.1.1994 with all consequential benefits. Let an order to that effect be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, both these writ petitions stand allowed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)