Umesh Yadav, aged about 45 years, son of Anup Yadav, Resident of – 117 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms &
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5530 of 2023 Umesh Yadav, aged about 45 years, son of Anup Yadav, Resident of – 117 Chour Mohalla, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The District Establishment Officer cum Deputy Collector, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District-Chatra, 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District-Chatra 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District-Chatra … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents 07/29th April 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Saumya Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure-5) wherein the petitioner’s services has been terminated after making him work for more than 16 years from 2007 on the post of Anusewak. ii.) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith regularize/absorb the service of the petitioner in light of letter dated 18.10.2019 1 (Annexure-4) wherein petitioner was asked to submit application as he was working on a duly sanctioned post, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in continuous service on the post of "Anusevak" since the year 2007 in the office of District Commissioner, Chatra. AND iii.) For directing upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service, after recallling the order dated 28.07.2023(Annexure-5), in light of the Regularization Rules, 2015 contained in Notification No. 1348 dated 13.2.2015 framed pursuant to the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi & Ors. Reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. AND / OR iv) Pass such order/orders, direction/directions, as your Lordship may deem fit & proper under the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been working in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on daily wage as peon/Anusevak since 2007 and the name of the petitioner appears in the panel dated 19.07.2007 which was prepared by the District Level Committee for appointment to Class-II post in Chatra District and the name of the petitioner finds place at serial No. 45 out of 183 selected candidates. A final panel was prepared and the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment. The petitioner’s name appeared at serial No. 31 in Annexure-2 dated 28.09.2007 and since then the petitioner has been continuously working. She submits that the case of the petitioner was fit for regularization under the scheme framed by the State of Jharkhand in the year 2015 and modified in the 2 year 2019 as the petitioner had completed the requisite period for regularization. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to letter No. 1035 dated 18.10.2019 contained in Annexure-4 and has submitted that through this letter, applications were called for from those persons who were seeking
Decision
regularization and in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner had submitted his application with all relevant documents. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that he has been working on duly sanctioned post for more than 10 years and the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal and at best it is an irregular appointment. The learned counsel submits that even the irregular appointment is covered under the aforesaid circulars issued by the State Government. 6. She has submitted that the petitioner was not regularized but continued to work till the issuance of the impugned letter dated 28.07.2023 whereby the services of the petitioner has been abruptly terminated without issuing any show cause to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is amongst those who was not working against the sanctioned vacant post. The learned counsel submits that numerous persons have been regularized but the case of the petitioner has not been considered and she has referred to Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. She submits that prior to discontinuation of those persons who were working over and above the sanctioned vacant post, a show cause notice was required to be issued, but in the instant case, no show cause was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner continued till 2023. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the letter dated 18.10.2019 calling for application for regularization is itself a show cause, inasmuch as, those persons who did not qualify in terms of letter dated 18.10.2019, their service was not regularized. The letter dated 18.10.2019 was also addressed to the petitioner. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the name of the petitioner was appearing in the panel since 2007 and the petitioner has been working but has 3 been discontinued by virtue of impugned letter dated 28.07.2023 on the ground that the petitioner is amongst those who are working against unsanctioned post. It appears from the record that a letter dated 18.10.2019 has been issued to as many as 20 persons including the petitioner calling for application for regularization in terms of the circulars issued by the State Government and in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated by the petitioner that in response, the petitioner had submitted his application along with the relevant documents, but no action was taken. The statement made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has simply been mentioned that paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the writ petition is a matter of record. 9. It further appears from the records that a letter dated 17.04.2017 was issued by the respondents as contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit indicating that prior to discontinuing anybody from services, a show cause was to be issued. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the letter dated 18.10.2019 cannot be said to be a show cause prior to discontinuation of service of the petitioner and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was discontinued only by the impugned letter dated 28.07.2023. 11. This Court finds that the response of the petitioner to the letter dated 18.10.2019 has neither been brought on record by the petitioner nor filing of such reply has been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. This Court finds that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered by the respondent No. 4 who shall verify the records and if the petitioner had responded to the letter dated 18.10.2019 as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the writ petition then the same is required to be considered. 12. It is further observed that admittedly no-show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to discontinuing the petitioner vide impugned letter dated 28.07.2023. Accordingly, in order to enable the respondent No. 4 to take appropriate decision in connection with the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to letter dated 18.10.2019, the impugned letter dated 28.07.2023 is directed to be ‘kept in abeyance’ subject to the order which may be passed by 4 the respondent No. 4 on the response of the petitioner to the letter dated 18.10.2019. 13. It will certainly be open to the petitioner to file a receipted copy of the response to the letter dated 18.10.2019 before the respondent No. 4 along with a copy of the representation. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 4 shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of the representation. 14. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner through speed- post. 15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 5