The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5542 of 2022 ------ 1. Vikash Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Indu Devi, Resident of Shiv Mandir Raod, Kanke Block, Near Shiv Mandir, Arsande, P.O.- Arsande, P.S.- Boreya, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Anupam Kumar, aged about 46 years, Son of Jainandan Ram, Resident of 170, Bariatu, RIMS Staff Colony Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Binod Kumar Acharya, aged about 45 years, Son of Sri Nityanand Acharya, Resident of RIMS Staff Colony Bariatu, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand. -Versus - … … Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Directorate of Health, Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, At- Namkom, P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Director, RIMS, Ranchi, At- RIMS Campus, Bariyatu, P.O. & P.S.- Bariyatu, Dist.- Ranchi. 5. The Additional Director (Administration), RIMS, Ranchi, At- RIMS Campus, Bariyatu, P.O & P.S. Bariyatu, Dist.- Ranchi. 6. The Administrative Officer, RIMS, Ranchi, At- RIMS Campus, Bariyatu, P.O & P.S.- Bariyatu, Dist. Ranchi. ------ ... … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Petitioners For the Resp. State For the Resp. RIMS ------ : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, A.C to A.A.G-V : Mr. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ 13/19.09.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of Memo No. 4849 dated 21.10.2022, Memo No. 4850 dated 21.10.2022 and Memo No. 4848 dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure- 9, 9/1 & 9/2) issued by the respondent no. 4 The Director, RIMS, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand, whereby and wherein the regularization of the petitioners has been cancelled with further prayer for directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioners and allow them to work on the post of Lower Division Clerk on which, they were regularized. 3. The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis on the post of Computer Operator after proper advertisement and recruitment process in the year 2006. The temporary post of computer operator was created for one year with stipulation that there will be no further extension. The respondents did not extend their engagement as computer operator after one year. However, they were allowed to continue to work on the said post till 2020. 4. In the year 2020, the respondent no. 3 The Director, Directorate of Health, Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand, regularized the service of the petitioners on the posts of L.D.C. (Lower Division Clerk) which was vacant sanctioned post. They were assigned to work as computer operator. 5. The aforesaid order recalling the regularization of the petitioners on the post of L.D.C (Lower Division Clerk) was in persuasion to the direction of Governing Body. The petitioners have made out a case that they have worked for about 14 years and as such they were entitled for regularization. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP(C) Nos. 22241-42 of 2016 rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that; “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly overtime. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants’ promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any -2- indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants’ arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 6. The respondent nos. 4 to 6 have filed counter affidavit, in which they have stated that; “11. That RIMS has not formulated its own scheme of regularization of Class-III and Class-IV employees till date. The Governing Body has also not adopted the scheme of regularization formulated by the State Government on 04.03.2015 vide Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015. It had earlier constituted a committee vide office order no. 13316 dated 07.12.2016 to submit a report with regard to regularization of employee working on contractual basis. The above committee submitted its report on 25/03/2017 but in absence of regularization scheme, no decision has been taken on the report till date. Further pursuant to the decision taken in the 52nd GB, a new committee has been constituted under the chairpersonship of Medical superintendent, RIMS for regularization of employees working on contractual basis. 12. That till date this committee has not submitted any proposal with regard to regularization of the contractual employees of RIMS. As such, RIMS has not yet formulated and put in place any regularization scheme for such employees as the petitioner. As such, there is no question of regularization of the service of the petitioners presently. 13. That it is stated that in view of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(PIL) No. 1301 of 2020 on 28.01.2022, the above committee did not submit any report. The above W.P.(PIL) was dropped on 07/08/2023. Based on the report of the above committee and formulation of regularization scheme by RIMS, the case of petitioners may be considered for regularization in future. 14. That till such time as RIMS doesn’t formulate any scheme of -3- regularization, the prayer of the petitioners as contained in the instant writ petition cannot be considered. This is in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi, reported in [(2006) (4) SCC 1] at para-53.” 7. In view of the averment in the counter affidavit, the formulation of scheme is pending before the Governing Body and when the scheme is formulated, the regularization of petitioner on any vacant sanctioned post shall be considered. Respondents are directed to formulate the scheme of regularization of those employees who are working on contractual basis within four months from the date of receipt of this order and after formulation of scheme, the respondents shall positively consider the regularization of the petitioners on the vacant sanctioned post with regard to the provision of scheme.
Decision
This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (AmbujNath, J.) 8. 9. Rahul/- -4-