Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 905 (JHR)

Gopal Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-07-29

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
JUDGMENT M.Y Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by respondents whereby the prayer of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected and further for direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner. 2. Petitioners case is that he was appointed on daily wages basis in 1980 and thereafter in 1993 he was given the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of circular dated 18.6.1993 the respondents have decided to regularize the services of all daily wages employees who have been working prior to 1.8.1985. The petitioner earlier moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2964/99(R) which was disposed of on 10.5.2001 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and take decision. In pursuance of that direction the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his prayer for regularization on the ground that he has not been working since 1980. 3. Mr. Sumir Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondents have completely ignored the order passed in CWJC No. 2964/99(R) in which it was conceded from the side of the respondents that the petitioner has been working since 1980. Learned counsel also drew my attention to various letters which are annexures to the writ application and submitted that in all the correspondences made by the respondents they have admitted the petitioner to have been working since 1980. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned G.P. IV submitted that the petitioner has been working since 1992 but the petitioner had made false statement in the earlier writ petition that he has been working since 1980. The respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the aforementioned writ application very categorically denied the said averment and stated that the certificate enclosed by the petitioner allegedly issued by the Conservator of Forest and Director, Social Forestry, Patna showing that he was working since 1980 is a forged document. Learned counsel submitted that the certificate dated 1.3.1992 which was annexed by the petitioner in earlier writ petition was verified and it was found that the certificate was not genuine. Learned counsel submitted that the certificate dated 1.3.1992 which was annexed by the petitioner in earlier writ petition was verified and it was found that the certificate was not genuine. Learned counsel further submitted that the earlier order passed in CWJC No. 2964/99(R) was on the basis of a concession made by the junior State Counsel which is not binding on the State. I find much force in the submission of the learned counsel. 5. In the order dated 10.5.2001 passed in CWJC No. 2964/99(R) this Court simply recorded the concession made by the learned counsel of the State. The relevant portion of the order reads as under : "J.C. to Additional Advocate General, on the basis of these correspondences made by the highest, officers of the Forest Department very fairly submitted that there are sufficient evidence to show that petitioner has been continuously working on daily wage basis since 1980. It has not been disputed in the counter affidavit that similarly situated daily wages employees working prior to 1.8.1985 have been regularized in service. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services is worth to be considered by the respondents forthwith for the reason that he has been working on daily wage basis for the last twenty one years." 6. In the earlier CWJC No. 2964 of 1999-R the respondents categorically disputed the genuineness of the certificate dated 1.3.1992 on the basis of which the petitioner claimed to have been working since January, 1980. For better appreciation paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit of the respondent is reproduced here in below : "That the petitioner has made claim that he is working as a Mali from January, 1980. The petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 1.3.1992 from Chief Conservator of Forest and Director Social Forestry, Patna before the Chief Conservator of Forest, World Food Programme, Ranchi. In the said certificate it was written that petitioner has been working in World Food Programme Circle, Purnea, Extension Circle Purnea and Wild Life Division, Ranchi since 1980. It is submitted that on scrutiny of this certificate it has been found that on 1.3.1992 the post of Chief Conservator of Forest and Director, Social Forestry Patna did not exist. There was a post of Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna. It is submitted that on scrutiny of this certificate it has been found that on 1.3.1992 the post of Chief Conservator of Forest and Director, Social Forestry Patna did not exist. There was a post of Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna. Sri N.P. Sinha, IFS (Retired) was the then Regional Chief Conservator of Forest Patna. The original submitted by the petitioner was sent to Sri N.F. Sinha for verification and he has stated that he has not given this certificate". 7. In spite of the categorical stand taken by the respondent- State in the counter affidavit a concession was made by the Junior State Counsel on the basis of the correspondences that the petitioner has been working since 1980 particularly when the petitioner in his earlier writ petition annexed an order dated 16.7.1993 in support of his case that he was appointed on the sanctioned vacant post on 16.7.1993 but he was again allowed to work on daily wages basis. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not brought on record a single chit of paper in support of his case that he has been working since 1980, rather, he is totally relying on the correspondence made by the respondents to the effect that he has been working since 1980. In all the correspondences the year of appointment of the petitioner as 1980 has been shown on the basis of the certificate, which was subsequently found to be a forged document. 9. As noticed above, in the earlier writ petition the respondents in their counter affidavit disputed the genuineness of the certificate on the basis of which the petitioner has been claiming his continuous service since 1980. It is only because of the concession made by the Junior State counsel, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization if, in fact, he has been working since 1980. It is worth to mention here that the genuineness of the certificate upon which the petitioner put heavy reliance has been seriously disputed by the Officer under whose signature the said certificate was allegedly issued. 10. Taking into consideration the categorical facts and statements brought on record by the respondents and in absence of any document from the side of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has been working since 1980. 10. Taking into consideration the categorical facts and statements brought on record by the respondents and in absence of any document from the side of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that he has been working since 1980. In that view of the matter I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the respondents. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.