Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1122 (JHR)

Abhay Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-12-22

M.Y.EQBAL

body2004
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned JC to AAG appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No. 1420, dated 23.8.2004 issued by respondent No. 3, Inspector General of Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the salary of the petitioner has been stopped and also for quashing the order dated 25.8.2004 issued under the signature of respondent No. 4. Jail Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Khunti, Ranchi whereby petitioner was stopped from working and his salary has been stopped. 3. Petitioners case is that in the year 1978 he was called for interview by the Superintendent, District Jail, Giridih and was selected on the post of Dresser on monthly payment of Rs. 165/-. Initially he was appointed for a period of three months but he was allowed to perform his duty till further order. In the year 1982, petitioner was transferred from District Jail, Giridih to Sub- Jail, Tenughat. He continuously worked and thereafter he was temporarily confirmed on the post of Dresser. Petitioner was again transferred from Sub- Jail, Tenughat to Sub-Jail, Latehar and in the year 1993 he was again transferred from Sub-Jail Latehar to Sub-Jail, Khunti. In this way, he has been continuously working since 1978 till the impugned letter was issued stopping the salary of the petitioner and not allowing him to render his services. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that petitioner was engaged as Dresser in the District Jail. Giridih by the Superintendent, District Jall, Giridih purely on temporary basis with the condition of removal from such engagement without any notice. It is stated that in 1982 the services of the petitioner was terminated because he was working on temporary basis but after a gap of twenty days petitioner was again appointed on the post of Dresser by the I.G. of Prison, Bihar. It is contended that the I.G. Prison, Bihar requested to send the document to verify the appointment of the petitioner but after verification of the document it was found that he was temporarily appointed and for that reason he has been removed from the service. 5. It is contended that the I.G. Prison, Bihar requested to send the document to verify the appointment of the petitioner but after verification of the document it was found that he was temporarily appointed and for that reason he has been removed from the service. 5. It has not been disputed by the respondents that petitioner has been working on the post of Dresser since 1978 and he has completed about 26 years of service on daily wages basis. It is really a matter of surprise that although he was appointed on temporary basis in 1978 but in 1982 by order of the then Inspector General of Prison, Bihar he was transferred from Giridih District Jail to Sub-Jail, Tenughat on the same post where the continuously worked. In 1982 the services of the petitioner was temporarily confirmed by the State Government in terms of order dated 21.6.1982 issued by the Inspector General of Prison, Bihar, Patna. Petitioner was again transferred from Sub-Jail, Tenughat to Sub- Jail, Latehar in 1988 where he worked for five years and then again transferred from Sub-Jail. Latehar to Sub-Jail, Khunti in the year 1993. In 1995 the Superintendent of Jail sent recommendation to the Inspector General of Prison, Bihar Patna for regularization of services of the petitioner considering his satisfactory performance, a copy of the letter has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It was only thereafter the impugned letter dated 23.8.2004 was issued directing stoppage of salary on the sole ground that in 1982 petitioner was appointed temporarily till further order and by another letter dated 25.8.2004 the salary of the petitioner was stopped and he was not allowed to work. 6. I am conscious of the law that this Court should be very cautious in issuing mandamus directing regularization of services mainly because of the fact that a person worked on daily wages for a long period. But in the instant case petitioner was appointed in 1978 on the post of Dresser for a fixed period and thereafter order was issued for his temporary confirmation and he was transferred from one district to another district and continuously worked for 24 long years. In my considered opinion, therefore, after taking services for a long 24 years a person cannot be thrown out on the street on the ground that his appointment was temporary. In my considered opinion, therefore, after taking services for a long 24 years a person cannot be thrown out on the street on the ground that his appointment was temporary. Such action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, capricious and mala fide. 7. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and also release all arrears as current salary payable to the petitioner.