The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 348 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Jharkhand, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi. 2. The Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Wild Life Circle, Ranchi, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. … Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Shasticharan Mahto, son of Late Durgacharan Mahato, resident of village Chakulia, P.O. Chilgu, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela Kharsawan. 2. Jagat Singh, son of Late Rathu Singh, resident of village Koira, P.S. Bodam, P.O. Paharpur, District East Singhbhum. 3. Rabi Singh, son of Late Kahur Singh, resident of village Kadamjhor, P.S. Chandil, P.O. Chilgu, District Saraikela Kharsawan. 4. Bisan Singh, son of Late Doman Singh, resident of village Koira, P.S. Bodam, P.O. Paharpur, District East Singhbhum. 5. Tarun Singh, son of Late Angad Singh, resident of village and P.O. Kuiyahi, P.S. Bodam, District East Singhbhum. 6. Mirja Shamim Akhtar Beg son of M.G.L.M. Beg, resident of village Doranda, Mistry Mohalla, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 7. Maheshwar Singh, son of late Barju Singh, resident of village- Khokharo, P.O. Paharpur, P.S. Bodam, District East Singhbhum. 8. Rabindra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Janki Sharan Singh, resident of village-Adarsh Colony, Road No.4, K-108, P.O. and P.S. Mango Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 9. Manjit Sagar, son of Sri Baidhnath Sagar, resident of village and P.O. Amrpali, P.S. Saintala, District Balangir, Orissa. 10. Girdhari Oraon, son of Late Ranga Oraon, resident of village- Faranga, P.O. Cheliyam, P.S. Nimdih, District Saraikela Kharsawan. [2] 11. Rina Singh, wife of Indu Bhushan Singh, resident of village and P.S. Mango, Kalika Nagar, Near Khanka, P.O. Mango, District- East Singhbhum. …….Petitioners/Respondents 12. The Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. 13. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Jamshedpur Town, District Singhbhum East. 14. The Conservator of Forest, Jamshedpur Division, East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 15. The Conservator of Forest, Wild Life Circle, Ranchi, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 16. The Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 17. The Divisional Forest Officer, Dalma Wild Life Division, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 18. The Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District, Ranchi. 19. The Range Forest Officer, Dalma Wild Life, Sanctuary Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. ………Proforma Respondents With L.P.A. No.298 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Forest Division, East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Samajik Vaniki Pramandal, P.O. Adityapur, P.S. Jamshedpur, District Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand … Respondents/Appellants [3] Versus 1. Jharkhand Van Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangh, East Singhbhum through its President, Jadav Soren, son of Late Chhoto Soren, resident of village Parasia, P.O. Dandudih, P.S. Barsol, District East Singhbhum. … Petitioner/Respondent 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary having its office at E-49/50, Sector-III, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Singhbhum Van Ropan Pramandal, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District Chaibasa. ………..Respondent/Proforma-Respondents With L.P.A. No.305 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Forest Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District, Ranchi. 3. Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Government of Jharkhand, Forest Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ……Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Jharkhand Van Shramik Union, Daltonganj, South Forest Division, Palamau, Daltonganj through its President, Siddhi Nath Jha, son of late Komal Nath Jha, resident of Daltonganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ……..Petitioner/Respondent 3. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, Forest Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. [4] 4. Conservator of Forest-cum-Field Director, Tiger Project, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau. 5. Conservator of Forest (Buffer Area), Tiger Project, South Forest Division, Daltonganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau. 6. Conservator of Forest (Core Area), Tiger Project, South Forest Division, Daltonganj, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau. 7. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Secretary at F- 49/50 Sector III P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 8. Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission office at F-49/50 Sector III P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. …….Proforma-Respondents. With L.P.A. No.323 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Forest Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest Hazaribagh, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh. ……..Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1. Dineshwar Prasad Yadav, son of Late Chhotu Yadav, resident of village-Harla, P.O. Gawa, P.S. Gawa, District Giridih, Jharkhand. 2. Kaushal Kishore Tripathy, son of Late Gariwan Tripathy, resident of village Nawadih, P.O. Hunterganj, P.S. Hunterganj, District Chatra, Jharkhand.
Legal Reasoning
the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time. 5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 202 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned. [8] L.P.A. Nos. 348, 298, 305, 323, 346, 372 and 509 of 2017, : 6. Since, all the appeals are against the order passed in the similar nature of dispute that is a direction seeking on behalf of the writ- petitioners/respondents herein for their regularization on Class-IV post, who were working in the capacity of daily wagers under the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand. These cases have been directed to be taken up together vide order dated 29th November, 2018 passed by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court and, accordingly, the cases have been listed together. The matters are being heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. 7. These intra court appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are directed against the order(s)/judgment(s) dated 11th November, 2016, 20th January, 2017, 18th October, 2016, 18th October, 2016, 20th January, 2017, 20th January, 2017 and 2nd May, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) Nos. 1611 of 2013, 466 of 2015, 2404 of 2010, 2538 of 2015, 2551 of 2015, 5918 of 2014 and 4882 of 2016 respectively by which the order passed upon the respondent-State to first examine whether at the time of petitioners’ engagement/appointment or immediately thereafter, posts on which they were appointed/engaged were vacant or not, and if at the time of their appointment/engagement the sanctioned posts were vacant, the respondent-State shall consider granting [9] benefit to the petitioners as they have been appointed on sanctioned vacant posts. 8. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions required to be enumerated, read as under: L.P.A. No.348 of 2017 The writ-petitioner no.1, 2, 4, 5, 6,7, 10 were appointed and working as Taiker from 1st December, 1988, 12th February, 1982, 1st July, 1986, 1st August, 1986, 1st June, 1987, 1st May, 1982, 1st June, 1986 respectively; the writ petitioner no.3 was appointed and working as Mahawat from 1st July, 1986; the writ petitioner nos.8 and 9 were appointed and working as Office assistant from 1st June, 1994 and 1st August, 2000 respectively; and the writ petitioner no.11 was appointed and working as Computer Operator from 1st May, 2001 continuously in the Department of Forest & Environment. In the year 2009, the Forest Range Officer has send the list of daily wages worker to the higher officials (Conservator of Forest) vide memo no.398 dated 25th December, 2009 for information and needful. The petitioners approached several times to the respondents to regularize them in the service but no action has been taken by the respondents, which led the writ petitioners to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1611 of 2013. L.P.A. No.298 of 2017 [10] The members of the petitioner association had been working under the respondent authorities on temporary basis since long as a Pashu Rakshak (Cattle Watcher) Forest Guard. Most of the members of the petitioner association belong to the Scheduled Tribe and OBC category. The members of the petitioner association and other similarly situated persons represented their case before the respondent authorities for their appointment by giving them relaxation in age. In the month of November, 2014, the respondent nos.4 and 5 issued an advertisement being Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination, 2014 to fill up the vacancies of the Forest Guard in the State of Jharkhand. In the said advertisement, the minimum qualification for such appointment is intermediate or its equivalent and as per clause 5, the upper age limit for this appointment for the general category candidate is 35 years and other backward caste and BC-2 is 37 years, ladies is 38 years and SC & ST people is 40 years and no age relaxation has been given for the persons who were/are working with the respondents. Vide order dated 19.12.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.2404 of 2010 and W.P.(S) No.5918 of 2014 some other daily wage workers whose case was similar to the members of petitioner association, have approached this Court, where the court has passed the following direction :- “Needless to say that if any other petitioner is otherwise eligible to participate and make application under the said advertisement, it is open for him to do so. Those who apply and are covered under the instant order would have to indicate along with their application, details of their continuous engagement under the respondents on [11] daily wage basis as Class IV employees apart from other relevant material particulars that are to be disclosed in the prescribed format. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that since application are to made online, therefore, additional information may not be accepted through online application. If that be so, the concerned applicants are permitted to supply the additional necessary particulars separately in the office of the Commission before cut of date also indicating the online application number or proof of having made such online application so that the Commission may not have any difficulty in processing such applications.” The respondent has not published any corrigendum or amendment in the said advertisement and also not extended time to fill up the form of forest guard in the light of aforementioned Court’s order for the larger interest of the candidates, who are working since long time. The members of the petitioner association both on age as well as on qualification do not fulfill the prescribed criteria prescribed in the said advertisement. On earlier occasion, other similarly situated persons had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4323 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2009 with the following observations :-
Arguments
3. Ram Kishun Ram, son of Sri Bhat Mahto, resident of village Sakhiya, P.O. Oriya, P.S. Muffasil, District Hazaribagh. 4. Md. Imram, son of Late Abdul Bari, resident of village Chistiya Mohalla, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh Sadar District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 5. Bishnu Kumar Roy, son of Sri Rameshwar Roy, village-Margoda, P.S. Birni, P.O. Jawaharnagar, District Giridih, Jharkhand. 6. Sadanand Mahto, son of Aina Mahto, resident of village-Hundi, P.O. Nadisai, P.S. Inchagarh, District Saraikela (Kharsawan)- 8324040, Jharkhand. ……..Petitioner/Respondent 7. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 8. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. [5] 9. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, situated at F-49/50, Sector-III, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi-834004. …….Proforma-Respondents. With L.P.A. No.346 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti Forest Division, Khunti, P.O. P.S. and District Khunti. ……..Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1. Ram Bali Das, son of Late Jagdish Das, resident of village rupaspur, P.O. Dhanuki, P.s. Sarmera, District nalanda (Bihar) at present residing at Bundu Block Road, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 2. Upendra Sharma, son of Late Bholi Sharma, resident of C/o Ram Chandra Sharma (Pan Gumti), beside Doranda Post Office, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ……..Petitioners/Respondent 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi Forestry Division, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. …….Proforma-Respondents. With L.P.A. No.372 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ……..Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1. Ram Dayal Mahto, son of Mukhwa Mahto, resident of village Porahat (Chinikuti) P.O. and P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum. 2. Basudeo Gope, son of late Bihari Gope, resident of village Lupudih, P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District Seraikela Kharsawan. 3. Somlal Sundi, son of Damu Sundi, resident of village Kurjuli, P.O. Nakti, P.S. Seraikela, District West Singhbhum. [6] 4. Shiv Shankar Mahato son of Khageshwar Mahato, resident of village Naranga, P.O. and P.S. Sonua, District West Singhbhum. 5. Anil Bodra, son of Muhan Bodra, resident of village Bhalay Kuder, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum West. 6. Saru Purty, son of Late Laxman Purty, resident of village Raigara, P.O. Tebo, P.S. Sonua District Singhbhum West. 7. Shravan Nayak, son of Kirtan Nayak, resident of Banglatanr, Dhatkidih, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum. 8. Ajit Mundri, son of Abhiram Mundri, resident of Meromgutu, P.O. and P.S. Bandgaon, District Singhbhum West. 9. Anil Dahanga, son of Late Benjamin Dahanga, resident of village Meromgutu, P.O. and P.S. Bandgaon, District Singhbhum West. 10. Pandu Kandir, son of Budhua Kandir, resident of village Kendeyong, P.O. and P.S. Tebo District Singhbhum West. 11. Bhupendra Pradhan, son of Late Atrajeet Pradhan, resident of village Sonua, P.O. and P.S. Sonua, District Singhbhum West. ……..Petitioners/Respondents 12. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 13. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary having its office at F-49/50, Sector-III, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 14. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection having its office F-49/50, Sector-3 P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 15. Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. …….Proforma-Respondents. With L.P.A. No.509 of 2017 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Divisional Forest Officer, Gumla Forest Division, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. and District Gumla. ……..Respondent No.4/Appellant. Versus 1. Maini Devi, wife of Ledo Mahli @ Lalu Mahli, resident of village Karamtoli, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi. ……..Petitioner/Respondent [7] 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Gumla Division, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District Gumla. …….Respondents/Proforma-Respondents. ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND ------- For the Appellant-State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-I [In L.P.A. No.348 of 2017] Mr. Priyadarshi, G.P.VI [In L.P.A. No.298 of 2017] : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate [In L.P.A. No.346 of 2017] For the Respondents Per: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 04/Dated: 12th January, 2023 ---------------------------- I.A. No. 4639 of 2017 in L.P.A. No.323 of 2017: 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 202 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 2. No counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed. 3. Heard the parties. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering
Decision
“I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand and its officers including the concerned Divisional Forest Officers to give preference to daily wagers like the writ petitioners over outsiders as and when Class-IV posts including the post of Forest Guards are filled up in near future and to give them age relaxation, if they are found over-age. However this direction will be limited to only those daily wage workmen/employees who are still working as on date of filing of the writ petition under the State Government and not to those who have already been retrenched/not in service as on date of filing of the writ petition dated 2nd August, 2007”. The respondent failed to comply the aforesaid order of the Court by not giving relaxation in age and educational qualification to the candidate who are already working as a Daily Wage Pashu Rakshak during the selection process of the forest guard. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner and others who were overage represented before the [12] concerned respondent to appoint them after giving due relaxation in age. L.P.A. No.305 of 2017 The members of the writ-petitioner union have been working on Class-IV posts in Tiger Project, Palamau Circle on temporary basis for last 20-25 years. The writ-petitioner has earlier moved before this Court for regularization of services of its 23 employees in C.W.J.C No.1660 of 1996 (R), which has been disposed of vide order dated 28.08.1996 with an observation that if any application is filed before the authorities for regularization same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest by its order no.20 dated 07.01.1996 disposed of the representation filed by the writ- petitioner with a direction to the concerned authorities to forward the claim of the members of the writ-petitioner union to the committee for consideration which was communicated to the writ- petitioner by letter no.179 dated 07.01.1997 but despite the observation made in the said office order no panel was prepared by the department for regularization of the members of the writ- petitioner union. Thereafter being aggrieved with the action of the respondent-authorities, the writ-petitioner moved before this Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3453 of 1999(R) for regularization of service, which was disposed of vide order dated [13] 07.06.2001 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the members of writ-petitioner union for regularization and an appropriate decision should be taken for regularization of members of writ-petitioner union against sanctioned posts or the future vacancies, in accordance with law. In pursuance to the order dated 07.06.2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents issued an office order as contained in memo no. 2566 dated 12.06.2002 whereby a decision was taken to give preference to those employees who are working prior to 1985, but, no action or decision was taken by the respondents with regard to regularization of the members of the writ-petitioner’s union. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner again moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 166 of 2003 for regularization of the services of the members of the writ-petitioner’s union, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2009 directing the respondents to take decision in the light of their own affidavit filed before the writ court within a period of three months and consider the case of the writ-petitioner for regularization on its own merit. It is the case of the writ-petitioner that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 01.04.2009 no decision within the stipulated time was taken by the respondents, against which, a contempt case being Cont. Case (Cvl) No.671 of 2009 was preferred which was [14] dropped vide order dated 12.03.2010 with a liberty to challenge the order dated 05.11.2009 before the appropriate forum. L.P.A. No. 323 of 2017 The writ-petitioner no.1 is working as Class-IV employee on the post of Bangla Chaukidar as daily wager since 1983 in Mandu Range Officer, Ramgarh Forest Division; the writ-petitioner no.2 is working since 01.03.1984 in Daru Forest Range of Hazaribagh, East Forest Division; the writ-petitioner no.3 is working as Mali in the Hazaribagh Division from 07.03.1983; the writ-petitioner no.4 is working since 1984; the writ-petitioner no.5 is working since 1993 under Range Officer, Forests, Bagodar Range of Hazaribagh; the writ-petitioner no.6 is working as cattle guard since 1986. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the office of PCCF, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide its letter no.1283 dated 20.04.2015 directed for initiation of steps in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 for regularization of the daily wagers but no such care of the aforesaid letter has been taken by the respondents. L.P.A. No.346 of 2017 The writ-petitioner no.1 is working on the post of Forest Guard as daily wager and discharging his duties since 1984; the writ- petitioner no.2 is working as Class-IV employee since 1983. [15] The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar took resolution vide letter no.5940 dated 18.06.1993 for giving weightage to the daily wagers for regularization in service in vacant and sanctioned posts who have completed minimum 240 days of continuous service in any department of the State Government. It is the case of the writ petitioners that some of the daily wagers approached before the Patna High Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2122 of 1992 for their regularization in service which was disposed of on 11.11.1993 with a direction to the respondents that in case of vacancies in the department to be filled- up in regular manner and the writ petitioners are otherwise eligible for the appointment against such posts, the case of the petitioners shall be considered if they apply for such appointment in accordance with law. But, the Staff Selection Commission had conducted the examination for filling-up the post of Forest Guard as a post of Grade-IV in various districts of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, as per the direction given by the Patna High Court, the due opportunity to regularize the writ petitioners prior to filling-up the same post through competitive examination has not been given heed. The Office of PCCF, Bihar vide its letter no. 1066 dated 01.03.1997 communicated to all the Chief Conservators of Forest/Regional Chief Conservator of Forest/Conservator of Forest/Divisional Forest Officer in respect of daily wagers who are working in the said department since long, for their regularization. [16] Thereafter, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi vide letter no.620 dated 21.04.2006 sent the list of 148 daily wager workers in which the writ petitioners’ name has been mentioned at sl. No.98 and 92 respectively for the purpose of regularization. The Under Secretary of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter no.15/VVP-10-08/2014P 1858 dated 26.02.2015 stating therein that in view of the Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015, the appointment of former daily wage workers’ services may be regularized. Thereafter, the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand at Ranchi vide its letter no. 1283 dated 20.04.2015 stating that the appointment of daily wagers should be made in accordance with law with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and Ors. (Supra). Thereafter, the writ-petitioners have submitted their respective applications before the Divisional Forest Officer, Khunti and Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi for regularization of their services but no action has been taken by any of the authorities. L.P.A. No.372 of 2017 The writ-petitioner no.1 is working on temporary basis since 16.09.1993 as a Forest Guard; the writ-petitioner no.2 is working on [17] temporary basis since 01.02.1982 as a Bungalow Chowkidar; the writ-petitioner no.3 is working on temporary basis as a Night Guard since 20.09.1989; the writ-petitioner no.4 is working on temporary basis since 06.09.1988 as a Forest Guard; the writ-petitioner no.5 is working on temporary basis since 01.111998 as a Driver; the writ- petitioner no.6 is working on temporary basis since 01.10.2007 as a Driver; the writ-petitioner no.7 is working on temporary basis as driver; the writ petitioner no.8 is working on temporary basis since 02.06.2008 as Check-post Guard; the writ-petitioner no.9 is working on temporary basis since 10.12.2009 as a Check-post Guard; the writ petitioner no.10 is working on temporary basis since 01.04.2004 as a Gardener; the writ-petitioner no.11 is working on temporary basis since 01.04.1978 as a Class-IV employee in the Department of Forest & Environment. The writ-petitioner nos.1 to 3 had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4323 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2009 with the following observations :- “6. I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand and its officers including the concerned Divisional Forest Officers to give preference to daily wagers like the writ-petitioners over outsiders as and when Class-IV posts including the post of Forest Guards are filled up in near future and to give them age relaxation, if they are found over-age. However, this direction will be limited to only those daily wage workmen/employees who are still working as on date of filing of the writ petition under the State Government and not to those who have already been retrenched/not in service as on date of filing of the writ petition dated 2nd August, 2007.” [18] Thereafter, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (the respondent no.4 in the writ petition) issued a notification/advertisement being Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination, 2014 to fill-up the vacancies of the Forest Guard in the State of Jharkhand but in clause 5 of the notification/advertisement in upper age limit no relaxation of age to the persons who have become over age was provided. L.P.A. No.509 of 2017 The writ-petitioner has joined the Department of Forest & Environment in the year 1998 as a daily wages employee for the post of sweeper against the sanctioned post. Since the date of joining, the writ-petitioner is regularly working in the Department. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand has published the vacancy for the post of forest-guard in the year 2014 through the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and invited applications from the daily wager working under the Department of Forest & Environment. Accordingly, the writ-petitioner has also applied for the post of Forest Guard. The writ-petitioner for regularizing his service has filed the several representations including the representation dated 18.02.2016 which is still pending. Thereafter, the writ-petitioner has also approached the Chief Conservator of Forest, Gumla Division by filing the representation dated 05.04.2016. 9. It is the case of the writ petitioner(s) in all the writ petitions that all are working under the Department of Forest & Environment, [19] Government of Jharkhand in different branches/districts in different offices in the capacity of daily wagers. It is the claim of the petitioners that they have been appointed against the sanctioned post way back in the year 1980s. They have made out a case that they are working since the year 1980s, as such, they should be regularized in view of the judicial pronouncement of Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others (supra), wherein it has been laid down that a daily wager if working regularly for last ten years without any aid of an interim order passed by any court of law against the sanctioned vacant post then the State is required to regularize them by taking under regular establishment by way of one time exercise to be completed within six months. According to the writ-petitioners, since they are working for more than ten years right from the year 1980s as such their cases are coming under the fold of the law laid down by way of an exception carved out as referred in paragraph- 53 of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others (Supra). The grievance having not been redressed, the writ petitions have been filed by the writ petitioners being W.P.(S) Nos. 1611 of 2013; 466 of 2015; 2404 of 2010; 2538 of 2015; 2551 of 2015; 5918 of 2014 and; 4882 of 2016 for seeking a direction for consideration of their case for regularization by taking them under regular establishment. [20] The respondent-State, appellant herein, has appeared and taken the stand therein that their appointment are not against the sanctioned posts and as such, they cannot be said to come under the fold of the exception carved out as under paragraph-53 of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others (Supra). The learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival submissions has passed order directing the State-respondent to examine first whether at the time of the petitioners’ engagement/appointment or immediately thereafter, post on which they were appointed/engaged were vacant or not, and if at the time of their appointment/engagement, there were sanctioned posts vacant, the respondent-State shall consider granting benefit to the petitioners as if they were appointed/engaged on sanctioned vacant posts. It has further been directed to examine the cases of the writ petitioners for regularization along with others and, accordingly, the writ petition(s) have been allowed with the aforesaid order/direction which is the subject matter of these intra court appeals. 10. The State-appellant has vehemently argued that the direction so passed by the learned Single Judge by first examining as to whether their appointment were against the vacant post or not cannot be said to be a proper direction, reason being that it is the specific case of the State in the counter affidavit that their appointment have not been made against the sanctioned post and once the State has come out with a specific stand, the writ petition ought to have been [21] dismissed on merit rather than to refer the matter before the State for its examination. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the State- appellant, perused the documents available on record as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. This Court is of the view that before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order it requires to refer herein the position of law for the purpose of consideration of cases of the daily wagers for their regularization. The law has been laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others (Supra), wherein the issue fell for consideration restraining the back door entry in public service. The Hon’ble Apex Court heavily deprecating the action so taken by the State in appointing the person through back door entry in the capacity of daily wagers and subsequently absorbing them in service but while deprecating the said action of the State, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also come out with an exception as has been carved out as would appear from paragraph-53 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein the consideration has been given that the State if is in requirement of the service of such daily wagers, the State by way of one time measure can take the exercise for their regularization subject to the condition that the appointment so made in the capacity of the daily wagers are against the sanctioned post and are not coming under [22] the fold of illegal appointment. The reference of the aforesaid paragraph i.e., paragraph-53 requires to be referred herein which reads as under:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 13. It is, thus, evident that Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration to give relaxation by absorbing the daily wagers in a case where the appointment so made are not coming under the fold of illegal appointment but it comes under the fold the irregular appointment i.e., if there is any procedural lacunae then the appointment so made in the capacity of the daily wagers is [23] required to be regularized by taking endeavors to be completed within a period of six months. The issue of irregular and illegal appointment has again been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, wherein distinction between irregular appointment and illegal appointment has been dealt with by holding therein that the illegal appointment will be said to be an appointment if not made against the sanctioned posts and the candidates who are being appointed are not possessing the requisite eligibility criteria while irregular appointment has been considered to be an appointment if made against sanctioned posts without taking recourse of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, meaning thereby without any advertisement etc. The issue of regularization has again been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2015(8) SCC 265, wherein in the facts of the given case as was there i.e., a daily wager was appointed sometime in the year 1983 vide office order dated 4th June, 1983 issued by the Principal of the concerned college but not against the sanctioned post and subsequently, Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Bihar passed a settlement dated 11th July, 1989 and forwarded a copy to Vice-Chancellor of the Universtiy stating therein that employers working in staff pattern can be regularized. However, the Registrar of University passed an order of [24] termination dated 1st March, 2001. In the backdrop, the appellant has filed litigation before the High Court for regularizing them in the service on the ground that he be regularized considering his long length of service, since, he has claimed to be working right from the year 1983. As per direction issued by the High Court, Registrar of a University vide letter dated 22nd December, 2001 allowed all daily wagers to resume their jobs from 3rd January, 2002 and appellant also joined thereon. The Principal of concerned college vide letter dated 12th July, 2004 recommended for absorption of appellant against two vacant posts. Consequently the three members committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor for consideration of his claim for regularization but the same was rejected. The appellant approached the High Court but failed in litigation and consequently matter reached to the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the case of the aforesaid appellant and after taking into consideration that the appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, but since 3rd January, 2002 appellant has working continuously against sanctioned post directed to concerned authorities to regularize the service of appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3rd January, 2002 (the date on which he rejoins the post). The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is required to be referred herein which reads as under: “13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of clerk was [25] regularised w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1- 2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1- 1-2010. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29 years on the post of night guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 3-1-2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar).” 14. Similar issue fell for consideration before a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court also in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Md. Ahsanullah Khan [L.P.A. No.529 of 2019] which was dismissed on 22nd December, 2021 where the plea has been taken by the State that the concerned litigant was working since the year 1988 but in the seasonal capacity, as such, his regularization was objected on the ground that since he was appointed against the seasonal post, as such, there cannot be an appointment since he was not falling under the category of the engagee who has been appointed against the sanctioned post. The co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the aforesaid case in L.P.A. No. 529 of 2019 has passed the judgment after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) and the other judicial pronouncement by directing the State to regularize him in service as would appear from the order dated 22nd December, 2021. For ready reference, the same is referred herein : “28. It is further required to refer herein that since the State of Jharkhand has been made on 15.11.2000, therefore, the ratio which has [26] been [24] laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others (supra) will count the period of ten years which was up to the date of pronouncement of the judgment, i.e., 10.04.2006 which subsequently has been been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 wherein it has been laid down that the period of ten years so far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned, would be counted from 15.11.2000 and if the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi and Others (supra) coupled with the observation made in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (supra), the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered for regularization taking into consideration the continuous service from the year 2002 since he has already completed ten years of service sometime in the year 2012, however, a point has been raised that the writ petitioner was not in continuous service but such fact cannot be accepted in view of the specific correspondence made by the Chief Engineer in the letter dated 13.05.2015 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand wherein it has specifically been stated that the writ petitioner is working during the entire year but he is being paid wages only of three months by treating him as a seasonal labourer. In this regard, no document has been brought on record before this Court rebutting the said statement and also no statement whatsoever has been made by the State appellant in denial of such statement, therefore, we are having no option but to accept the statement of the Chief Engineer as contained in letter dated 13.05.2015 who is the highest technical authority in the department just below the Engineer-in-Chief of the department, as such, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner is working regularly since 2002, i.e., from the date of his appointment and he is still working, this fact has not been disputed by the State-appellant. 29. This Court, after considering the fact in entirety as aforesaid, is of the view that the State-appellant has not acted in fairness rather the State-appellant has acted as a private money lender by taking work from the writ petitioner for entire year and paying wages only of three months treating him as a seasonal labourer even though his work is required in the department.” 15. It requires to refer herein that the State of Jharkhand preferred S.L.P. being S.L.P. (C) No.9318 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the said order but the said S.L.P. was dismissed vide order dated 20th May, 2022. The purpose of giving reference of the order passed by a learned co-ordiante Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.529 of 2019 is that the vehement argument has been made on behalf of the State that there cannot be regularization if the post is not sanctioned but this Court is of the view that in the aforesaid case [27] also the plea of the State was that since the post was a seasonal one as such there cannot be any direction for regularization but co- ordinate Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the fact that the concerned employee was allowed to work right from the year 1988 and work has been taken from him for the last 30 years and as such, there was no reason not to regularize him in service, meaning thereby, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the long length of service and once the long length of service has been considered it does imply that the State was in requirement of service and thereafter, after lapse of about 30 years it is not available for State to take the ground that the posts are not sanctioned. 16. This Court after having discussed the legal position has come to the facts of the given case. The admitted fact herein is that the writ- petitioners claim to have been engaged in the daily wager capacity sometime in the year 1980s and they are still continuing in service. It has been informed to this Court that after the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi(3) and others (Supra), the issue has been crept up that when the State of Jharkhand has been created on 15.11.2000 then what will happen to the completion of period of ten years and if it is counted from 15.11.2000 which is to be counted as per the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi(3) and others (Supra) which was [28] pronounced on 6th July, 2006, then no employee working in the capacity of the daily wagers will have completed the period of ten years taking it account from the creation of the State of Jharkhand. While dealing with the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra) has laid down proposition therein that so far as it relates to the daily wagers working under the State of Jharkhand the period of ten years will be counted from 15.11.2000. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further directed the State of Jharkhand to formulate a policy/scheme or the rule. The State of Jharkhand has formulated the said rule in the year 2015 known as Jharkhand Regularization of Services of Employees Irregularly Appointed and Serving under Jharkhand Government Rules, 2015 (Amendment). 17. It is evident from the pleading made on behalf of the parties as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge in one of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2551 of 2015, wherein reference of direction passed by a co-ordinate learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2538 of 2015 has been made and has directed to examine as to whether the writ petitioners have been appointed against the sanctioned posts or not along with a direction to govern the direction which was passed by the co-ordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.466 of 2015. 18. This Court, therefore, has gathered from the argument advanced on behalf of the State-appellant that the fact about the availability of [29] post or appointment having not been made against the sanctioned post although has been raised and it is for the reason the learned Single Judge has passed an order leaving it open upon the State to examine as to whether the appointment so made against the daily wagers are against the sanctioned post or not, and if it is against the sanctioned post then the exercise for their regularization be taken. We have considered the statement so made in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State where from it is evident that an evasive statement has been made to the effect that posts are not sanctioned but according to our considered view the said statement cannot be said to sufficient to reject the claim of the writ-petitioners for considering their cases for regularization reason being that the State should have come with specific details giving therein the details of posts year wise with date of creation for better scrutiny by the learned Single Judge with the date of respective engagement/appointment of one or the other writ-petitioners. The State if would have come with the details of the posts sanctioned with its date and by reflecting the entire cadre strength then the matter would have been different. The learned Single Judge if on that pretext has considered it a fit case for scrutinizing the claim of the writ-petitioner(s) by referring it before the Government to consider then how such order can be assailed by the State, this Court is failed to understand. Since, the learned Single Judge has not issued any command for regularization and it cannot be as per the settled proposition of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex [30] Court that the Writ Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India, cannot pass an order for regularization depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case but the Writ Court can well pass an order in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the case of regularization is being brought under the fold of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others (Supra). The aforesaid direction is under challenge in these appeals. 19. This Court after going through the operative part of the order dated 11th November, 2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.1611 of 2013 as under paragraph-9 is of the view that when the co-ordinate learned Single Judge on consideration of the fact about the sanctioned post as also the length of the service of one or the other writ-petitioner has left the issue of regularization of the writ petitioners upon the State, where is the question to assail the said order by filing intra court appeal(s). The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to answer the same. For ready reference, the paragraph-9 of the aforesaid order dated 11th November, 2016 is being referred as under: “9. In the facts of the present case, it is ordered that the respondent-State shall first examine whether at the time of the petitioners’ engagement/appointment or immediately thereafter, posts on which they were appointed/engaged were vacant or not, and if at the time of their appointment/engagement there were sanctioned posts vacant, the respondent-State shall consider granting benefit to the petitioners as if they were appointed/engaged on sanctioned vacant posts.” 20. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is the State who has to take decision in view of the direction passed by the learned Single [31] Judge in W.P.(S) No.1611 of 2013 as would appear from paragraph- 9 thereof, but, the State instead of taking such decision filed instant appeals. 21. This Court, as such, is of the view that the direction so passed as under paragraph-9 of the aforesaid writ petition cannot be said to suffer from an error. The order passed in L.P.A. No.346 of 2017, wherein the reference of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.466 of 2015 has been made, it has been informed that the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is also subject matter of appeal in L.P.A. No.298 of 2017, wherein the reference of availability of 466 vacant post of Class-IV posts have been referred. The State has taken a specific plea as would appear from the counter-affidavit that there is no such availability of vacant post but without any details contained therein regarding the date of creation of post, the date of engagement and the entire working strength in the cadre. 22. This Court in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge if on that pretext since the details of the creation of posts etc. have not been brought for its consideration before it and has passed order while disposing of the writ petition leaving the claim of the writ petitioner to be scrutinized as to whether at the time of petitioners’ engagement/appointment or immediately thereafter post on which the writ petitioners have been engaged/appointed were vacant or not. The State is required to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter by taking into consideration the details regarding creation of post etc. in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the case [32] of the writ petitioner are coming under the fold of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka (Supra). The matter would have been different if the learned Single Judge had adjudicated the claim of the writ petitioners by taking the decision in their favour holding them entitled for regularization but that is not the case herein. It is the settled position of law that the finding can only be questioned by the State if the State would have been directed to regularize the writ-petitioners in service but there is no such direction as would appear from the operative part of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and there cannot be an order for regularization as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand & Ors. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 which reads as under : the “65. The questions whether in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can issue a mandamus and compel the State and its instrumentalities/agencies to regularise hoc/daily wager/casual/contract employees and whether direction can be issued to the public employer to prescribe or give similar pay scales to employees appointed through different modes, with different conditions of service and different sources of payment have become subject-matter of debate and adjudication in several cases.” temporary/ad services of The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid proposition since has passed order leaving it upon the State to first examine whether at the time of petitioners’ engagement/appointment or immediately thereafter, posts on which they were appointed/engaged were vacant or not, and then to take [33] decision pertaining to regularization of the writ petitioners in service. The State on the basis of such direction passed by the learned Single Judge can well take decision on the basis of proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others (Supra) after examining the issue of the engagement with the availability of the sanctioned post the day when the writ-petitioners have been engaged and as such in that view of the matter it is the bounden duty of the State to examine the claim of the writ-petitioners in order to come to the conclusion as to whether their services are fit to be regularized or not. The State in that view of the matter can take decision in favour of the writ-petitioners, if the claim is found to be justified on the basis of the governing law and certainly their claim can be rejected if the case of the writ-petitioners not found under the fold of proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others (Supra). 23. This Court, after having discussed the legal position with the factual aspect and by taking into consideration the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge with the direction as contained in operative part while disposing of the writ petition, is of the considered view that the order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error. 24. In the result, the instant intra-court appeals fail and are dismissed. [34] 25. Learned counsel for the appellants at this juncture has submitted that since the learned single Judge has passed an order to complete the exercise but the time frame has not been stipulated, therefore, four months’ time may be given for completing the said exercise as directed by the learned Single Judge. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has submitted that the learned Single Judge since has not specified any time, as such, the State be directed to take a decision as directed within a specific period. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants is having no objection to such submission. 28. Considering the same, let such exercise, as directed by the learned Single Judge as under paragraph 9 of the order dated 11.11.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.1611 of 2013 thereof, be complied with within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 29. Accordingly, the instant intra court appeals stand dismissed with the aforesaid modification. 30. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 31. The interim order(s) passed in the instant intra court appeal(s) also stand vacated. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit Pandey/-A.F.R.