Rajesh Kumar Verma, aged about 39 years, son of Ganesh Prasad Mahto, resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Women, Child Development and Social
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2083 of 2023 Rajesh Kumar Verma, aged about 39 years, son of Ganesh Prasad Mahto, resident of Shanti Sadan, Kushwala Chowk, Leda, Village Leda, P.O. Leda, P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih Petitioner … … Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Dhurwa, P.O Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Giiridih, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunvala, Advocate : None For the Petitioner For the Respondents 07/23rd April 2024 1. 2. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. None appears on behalf of the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “(a) For issuance of the writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) upon the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner who has been continuously working against the post of computer Operator for more than 10 years and absorb him on the sanctioned post of Accounts Clerk as he possesses all the requisite qualification for the said post. (b) Upon regularization of the service of the petitioner for further issuance of an appropriate services of the petitioner for further issuance of an appropriate writ(s) / order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the period from the date of initial appointment for computation of all benefits including the retial benefits. (c) In alternatively, for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), the writ of mandamus order(s), direction(s) particularly commanding upon to make payment of remuneration / benefit to the petitioner at par the remuneration / benefits being granted to the regular employees working on the post of Account Clerk. the respondents 1 (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) particularly the writ or mandamus commanding upon the respondents to let the petitioner continue his service on the post of Computer Operator till the disposal of this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given the factual background by submitting that vide letter no. 33, dated 25.01.2008, the Deputy Commissioner Giridih, who was the competent authority, had appointed the petitioner as Computer Operator in Social Security Cell, Giridih, for the period from 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008 on payment of daily wage of Rs. 183/- and, thereafter, the services of the petitioner was extended from time to time. She further submits that on 31.01.2013, the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.01.2013 on the post of Computer Operator –cum- Clerk on contractual basis under Jharkhand Building And Other Construction Workers Welfare Board functioning under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner Giridih. The petitioner being duly qualified, was selected pursuant to the advertisement and, thereafter, the petitioner has been continuously working. 5. A letter dated 10.06.2015 was issued by the Director Social Security, Jharkhand to all Deputy Commissioners to appoint people against vacant sanctioned post (Accounts Clerk) as per the required rules. The salary of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs. 16,480/- from November 2016 by virtue of the order passed by the Principal Secretary, Directorate of Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, applicable to all computer operators in the Social Security Cell. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for regularization in terms of the circular issued by the State Government pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others in Civil Appeal No. 7423 – 7429 / 2018 and the cut of date of the earlier circular of 2015 dated 13.02.2015 has been shifted by virtue of another circular dated 20.06.2019. She further submits that the petitioner has completed 10 years of service and is entitled for regularization under the scheme for regularization framed by the State Government vide circular dated 13.02.2015 read with the circular dated 20.06.2019. She further 2 submits that in terms of Annexure – 11, a number of computer operators have been regularized. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Others and has referred to Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the said judgment to submit that the appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had served the university for more than 29 years on the post of Night- Guard and had served the college on daily wage and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to regularize the services of the appellants with retrospective effect, the date on which he joined the post as per the direction of registrar/university. She further submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment and in terms of the scheme for regularization, the Circular of the year 2019 having been placed on record, the petitioner is also entitled for regularization. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that though the petitioner was employed on daily wage with effect from 25.01.2008 but the employment of the petitioner as daily wage ended in view of the fact that the petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 19.01.2013 and was appointed on purely contractual basis. The advertisement has been placed on record as contained in Annexure – 2 series which clearly provides that the employment was for a period of one year on contractual basis, subject to renewal. It further appears from the records of this case that the contractual services of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and last such renewal which has been placed on record is at Annexure – 10 which is for a period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. 9. Thus, the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage but subsequently he was appointed on contractual basis pursuant to advertisement and the contract of employment of the petitioner was renewed from time to time. 10. As per the scheme for regularization of the State Government which is contained in circular dated 13.02.2015 and its modification vide circular dated 20.06.2019 (Annexure – 5) it is apparent that the scheme was for those 3 persons who were irregularly appointed and were continuously working for a minimum period of 10 years. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the said scheme for regularization is not applicable for contractual appointments as the contractual appointments are not irregular appointments. 12. The petitioner was duly appointed on contractual basis pursuant to advertisement. 13. The claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has worked continuously from 25.01.2008 is also not correct in view of the fact that the appointment on daily wage of the petitioner ended once the petitioner was taken into employment on contractual basis pursuant to advertisement. Accordingly, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265 (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case where one daily wage employee had continued to work for 29 years and appropriate orders were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the interest of justice. Here the petitioner was employed on contractual basis and it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that the employment is contractual and was subject to renewal from time to time. 14. In this context, it would be useful to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 801 (Ganesh Digambar Jambhrunkar & Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) wherein it has been clearly held that working for a long period on contractual basis, does not create a vested right of regularization. 15. This Court is of the considered view that the claim for regularization of the petitioner is not covered by the scheme for regularization as framed by the State and, accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Aditi (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4