The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5590 of 2023 Phoolzadi Khatoon, aged about 61 years, wife of S. M. Noorhassan, Daughter of N.A. Uddin, Resident of Khalasi Mohalla, madhupur, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand Versus Petitioner … … 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govern. of India, Shastri Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, State – Delhi, 110001 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, State – Delhi, 110001 3. The Indian Statistical Institute through Director, Indian Statistical Institute, 203, B. T. Road, Kolkata-35, P.O. & P.S. Cossipore, District Kolkata, West Bengal 4. The Director, Indian Statistical Institute, 203, B. T. Road, Kolkata-35, P.O. & P.S. Cossipore, District Kolkata, West Bengal 5. The In-charge, Administrative and Finance, Indian Statistical Institute, 203, B. T. Road, Kolkata-35, P.O. & P.S. Cossipore, District Kolkata, West Bengal 6. The Officer-in-charge, Sociological Research Unit, India Statistical Institute, Giridih Office, Rosevilla, New Barganda, P.O. New Giridih, P.S. Giridih, … … Respondents District Giridih, Jharkhand CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents 05/21st February 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu, Advocate 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “1. That in the instant Writ Petition the Petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions commanding upon the Respondents and directing them to consider the case of the Petitioner and to Treat/Shift the date of service of the Petitioner as regular service in the post of Jr. Assistant Grade- .II/Office Assistant 'A' in the Indian Statistical Institute with effect from 1st April, 1999 in place of 18/11/2010 , when similarly situated Smt. namely person Krishana Bhattachaya has been regularized in the Giridih office by Office Order No. PU/103/REC-SC/C5517 dated 22nd March 1999 and Respondents regularized the service of similarly situated employee namely Smt. Krishna Bhattacharya w.e.f. 1st April, 1999 without considering the name of the Petitioner for regularization at that time, although Petitioner was more qualified than Smt. Krishna Bhattacharya and both are continuously working in the Giridih office as Temporary worker since 1986 and Petitioner is entitled for 2 regularization as Office Assistant "A" w.e.f. 1st April, 1999 and the Respondents ironically regularized the service of the Petitioner as Office Assistant "A" w.e.f. 18/11/2010 by Office Order No. PU/103/REC-SC/C 1134 dated 18/11/2010 ; AND Petitioner further prays for a direction upon the Respondents and directing them after considering the case of Petitioner to Treat/Shift the service of the Petitioner as regular service in the post of Jr. Assistant Grade- .II/Office Assistant "A" in the Indian Statistical Institute with effect from 1st April, 1999 and accordingly to treat the Petitioner under the Old scheme of Pension and to make payment the differences of Arrears of salary as well as Retirement Benefits i.e. Pension and others dues to the Petitioner in accordance with law; AND/OR Pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper by which the Petitioner is legally entitled to.” 3. Pursuant to order dated 20.02.2024, the learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal does not have the necessary jurisdiction to consider the grievance of the petitioner and accordingly the present writ petition is maintainable. 4.
Decision
From perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier for the same relief in W.P. (S) No. 4791 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2017 with the following directions: - “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner along with one Krishna Bhattarya was appointed on temporary basis in the 1986 in the said Institute and their services were extended from time to time without any break in service. By passage of time, on the basis of representation made by that Krishna Bhattarya, she was given permanent status and has been regularized by the Director by virtue of power conferred on him vide Clause 19.3 of the Standing Service Order of the Institute initially for a period of one year and later on her services were regularized. However, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner rendered her services in the Institute to the utmost satisfaction and only because she was given time to time extension that too for three decades. 8. In such view of the matter, the respondents, in particular, respondent no. 4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Jr. Assistant Gr. II in Giridih Office of Indian Statistical Institute, as stated, at par with the similarly situated person, namely, Smt. Krishana Bhattacharya and take an appropriate decision in the matter taking into consideration the averments made in the writ application and the observations made by this Court and taking into account the relevant rules/regulations/circulars etc. within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 5. This Court also finds that one contempt application was filed by the petitioner being Contempt (Civil) Case No. 86 of 2018 wherein vide order dated 21.12.2018, the following order was passed: - “Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned CGC for the Opposite Parties. 3 This contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 15.09.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4791 of 2009. A show case affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party wherein it has been averred that petitioner has been regularized in the post of Office Assistant, vide order dated 18.11.2010 and 03.08.2018, as evident from Annexure A/1 and A/2 to the show cause affidavit. In view of the aforesaid fact, it appears that order has been complied with. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner approach appropriate forum, if any other grievance still subsists. With the aforesaid liberty contempt proceeding is dropped.” 6. From perusal of the order passed in the contempt case, it appears that two orders were annexed along with the show cause. One was order dated 18.11.2010 whereby the petitioner has been regularized and another order was dated 03.08.2018. The petitioner has neither annexed a copy of the order dated 03.08.2018 along with this writ petition nor has mentioned anything about the same in the present writ petition. 7. The records of the contempt case being Contempt Case (C) No. 86 of 2018 was called for and upon perusal of the show cause filed in the contempt case, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner as compared with that of Krishana Bhattacharya was held to be not at par with that of Krishana Bhattacharya. 8. In this writ petition, the petitioner is again claiming comparison with Krishana Bhattacharya. The order dated 03.08.2018 as annexed with the show cause file in Contempt Case (C) No. 86 of 2018 is not under challenge in the present proceeding. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection to the prayer made for withdrawal. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 12. The petitioner may avail her remedy in accordance with law. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)