Bikrama Prasad … v. 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Jharkhand Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3916 of 2011 Bikrama Prasad …. Petitioner Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Jharkhand Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Joint Secretary cum Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Medium Irrigation, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ------ …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AC to SC (L&C)-III ----- 08 / 09.01.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to confirm his service on the post of Jeep Driver as he was appointed on 17.2.1979 as Janjir Wahak (Chainman) and subsequently promoted to the post of Jeep Driver. The petitioner has also challenged the show cause notice contained in Letter No. 185 dated 27.6.2011, by which the petitioner was asked to reply on the issue of appointment being illegal. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Janjir Wahak (Chainman) vide office order contained in Memo No. 178 dated 17.2.1979 issued under the signature of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project, Chhapra in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed / adjusted by way of promotion to the post of Jeep Driver vide office order dated 16.12.1986. After bifurcation of the State, the service of the petitioner fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand, as he was lastly posted in the district of Ranchi. However, after serving for almost ten years in the State of Jharkhand, a letter dated 24.3.2011 was issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand asking the petitioner to submit certain documents with respect to his appointment. The petitioner being duty bound submitted all the 2 required papers on 4.4.2011. However, a show cause notice contained in Memo No. 185 dated 27.6.2011 was issued to the petitioner to reply over the certain issues with respect to his earlier appointment being ab inito void and illegal and as to why his service be not terminated. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court challenging the aforesaid show cause notice and to direct the respondents to pass necessary order confirming the service of the petitioner on the post of Jeep Driver. 4.
Decision
From perusal of the entire averments made in the writ petition as well as counter affidavit, it appears that the show cause notice was issued mainly on the grounds that (1) The appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis,; (2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer which had issued the appointment letter was not a competent authority; and (3) There was violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the procedure of appointment of the petitioner. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that similar issue fell for consideration way back in the year 2005 before this Court in the case of Gopal SinghVs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (4) JLJR 615. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has observed that in view of admission in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the Special land Acquisition Officer has power for appointment of Class-III and IV post against the sanctioned post as per the guidelines contained in letter no. 53 dated 18.2.1978, the ground for terminating the petitioner’s service that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not competent to issue appointment letter, has no legs to stand. The Court further observed that since the petitioner has worked for 21 long years, it cannot be said that the post was temporary or the same was an unsanctioned post. It was also observed therein that the Director, Land Acquisition himself had examined the matter and thereafter the order of promotion to the post of Jeep Driver was issued vide Annexure-2 and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no approval of the Director in the appointment of the petitioners. 6. The relevant portion of the order of the Court passed in Gopal Singh (supra) is quoted herein under:- “As already noticed the respondents have admitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had power of appointment for the post of Grade-IV and III against the sanctioned post in the establishment in accordance with the guidelines vide letter No. 3 63, dated 18.2.1978. In view of the said statement made in the counter-affidavit, the main ground on the basis of which the petitioner’s appointment was sought to the held invalid, has no foundation. From subsequent conduct of the authorities also it cannot be said that the petitioner’s appointment was a back door appointment and was without any authority and it was not approved by the Director. The Director who was admittedly, the competent authority, had subsequently examined the case of the petitioner along with similarly situated persons and had disused order of promotion by Annexure-2, by his Memo No. 18, dated 6.1.1989 as contained in Annexure-2. The respondents have not denied the said fact of issuing the said order Annexure-2 by the Director. The ground that the petitioner’s appointment had no approval of the Director thus is also falsified by the aid Annexure-2 as the order of the promotion to the petitioner could not have been issued under that circumstance, had it been an unauthorised appointment. So far as temporary nature of the post is concerned, it is an admitted case that the petitioner was allowed to work for long 21 years on the said post. On that basis, it cannot be safely inferred that the post was temporary or the same was an unsanctioned post. Considering the above discussion, I do not find any legal basis for issuing the impugned termination order. Annexure-12. The same is thus wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust and cannot be allowed to sustain. In the result the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 997, dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure-12) is thus quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in his service without any break. Since the petitioner was kept out of service illegally and arbitrary, the petitioner is entitled to get his full salary of the intervening period i.e. from the date of his termination by Annexur-12 till the date of his reinstatement.” 7. Thereafter, the matter was travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and finally the order passed by the Writ Court has been affirmed and attained its finality. It has also been brought on record that thereafter several writ petitions were filed and they are travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and after the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the follow up actions of reinstatement of the several employees were taken. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also admits the position and submits that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the above order and directions. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration and the impugned show cause notice is required to be interfered with in view of the settled legal propositions in the case of 4 Gopal Singh (supra) and other similar cases. Admittedly, the case of the present petitioner is similar to that of Gopal Singh. Herein, also the petitioner’s was issued show cause on the grounds that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not authorised to appoint the petitioner; there was no mention of Memo Number in the appointment letter; there was violation in appointment procedure; and the appointment was illegal and not irregular. 10. Exactly on the same grounds, said Gopal Singh was terminated and this Court after hearing the parties has been pleased to quash and set aside the termination order on the grounds mentioned above. The order of the Writ Court was challenged by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 421 of 2005 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the State has tested the order passed by the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein also the State has failed. Similar matters have also been travelled upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter only, the follow up consequential orders of reinstatement was issued by the respondents in favour of the concerned petitioners. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nothing remains to be further dealt with in the present matter, save and except to hold that the impugned notice dated 27.6.2011 (Annexure-5) is not tenable in the eyes of law and the petitioner is fit to be confirmed in service. 12. As a cumulative effect, the impugned show cause order contained in letter no. 185 dated 27.6.2011 (Annexure-5) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue necessary order confirming the service of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. stands allowed. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition R.Kr. / Rohit (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)