Akshay Prasad Singh ……… v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ranchi. 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 7216 of 2012 ---------- Akshay Prasad Singh ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Revenue and L.R. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5. The State of Bihar through the Director, Census, Bihar, Patna. ………. Respondents. With W.P.(S). No. 7258 of 2012 Mukesh Kumar ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Revenue and L.R. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5. The State of Bihar through the Director, Census, Bihar, Patna ………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 7523 of 2012 Santosh Kumar ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Revenue and L.R. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5. The State of Bihar through the Director, Census, Bihar, Patna ………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1202 of 2013 Bikash Kumar Sinha ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Revenue and L.R. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5. The State of Bihar through the Director, Census, Bihar, Patna ………. Respondents 2 With W.P.(S). No. 2788 of 2015 Murari Kumar Sinha ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Revenue and L.R. Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 5. The State of Bihar through the Director, Census, Bihar, Patna ………. Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1516 of 2022 Arbind Kumar ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ranchi. 2. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 4. Special Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. Director of Census, Ministry of Home, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Respondents ………. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioners ----------- :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For State of Jharkhand : For the UoI : Mr. O.P. Tiwari, GP-III Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr.SC-I Ms. Shilpi, AC to SC(M)-II Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Sr. P.C. Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate Ms. Leena Mukherjee, CGC For the State of Bihar Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate : ---------- 14/ 12.02.2024 Heard the parties. 2. In view of identical facts and prayers made in all the cases, they are
Decision
heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3 3. Petitioners are retrenched 1991 Census Employee of Ranchi District belonging to 1991 Census Directorate of Bihar, Patna. 4. It is claim of petitioners that in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.03.1999 passed in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. G. Mohamed Ammenudeen and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 810 of 1998) their services ought to have been absorbed as has been done in case of one similarly situated person namely, Jitendra Kumar Sahu. 5. The writ petitions were filed in between the year 2012 to 2015 and one writ was filed in the year 2022. Thereafter, several orders have been passed but other than the said Jitendra Kumar Sahu none of the petitioners have absorbed by the respondents. 6. Hence, this Court asked to get clear-cut instruction from respondents as to whether the names of the present petitioners figures in the list of retrenched employees. Complying the Court’s order, specific affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State. It has been pointed-out that save and except one Arbind Kumar (petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1516 of 2022) names of all other petitioners figures in the column of retrenched employees. 7. Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned GP-III representing the respondent-State, on direction of this Court sought instruction and very fairly submits that the matter has been taken-up by the State Government and after due consideration, the same has sent to the Cabinet for its approval. It has been further argued that sooner the approval is accorded, the petitioners will be considered for appointment on different posts as has been done in the case of Jitendra Kumar Sahu, who is similarly situated to the present petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that since the State has received a report that other than Arbind Kumar (petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1516 of 2022), all peittioners have been retrenched from the services, in view of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of specific instructions sought from different Departments, petitioners are likely to be absorbed after getting approval of the State Cabinet. 8. In case of Arbind Kumar (petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1516 of 2022), it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though affidavit has been filed by the Central Government that name of this 4 petitioner do not figure in the column of retrenched employee but in earlier affidavit it has been said that petitioner was daily wager and the present affidavit is contrary to the earlier affidavit filed by the respondent-Union of India and as such, suffice it would be if a direction is given to the petitioner to file fresh representation for redressal of his grievances and upon receipt of the same, respondents may be directed to pass reasoned order on his representation within a stipulated period of time. 9. In view of fair submissions of Mr. O.P. Tiwari, learned GP-III representing the respondent-State, I hereby dispose of all these writ petition with a directions to the respondent-State to consider the cases of petitioners and pass a final order for absorption of the petitioners after getting approval of the Cabinet, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. As far as the case of Arbind Kumar (petitioner in W.P.(S). No. 1516 of 2022) is concerned, since affidavits are contrary, I hereby direct the petitioner to file fresh representation annexing all the relevant documents on which he is relying, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of this order, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law, taking into consideration the prevalent rules, guidelines as also order dated 11.03.1999 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. G. Mohamed Ammenudeen and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 810 of 1998) and thereafter pass a speaking and reasoned order, within a further period of six weeks, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, as prayed for, the same may be extended to him within a further period of four weeks. 11. With these observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. 12. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)