Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1158 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-25

AJIT KUMAR SINHA

body2008
ORDER Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 88 dated 3.8.2002 vide which the petitioner was relieved from his service w.e.f. 1.8.2002 and a further prayer has been made for reinstatement with consequential benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Driver in Work Charge Establishment on 2.9.1989 but his service book has been opened on 19.9.1992, it is submitted that on 5.3.1997 the Special Secretary, Public Health Department, Bihar, Patna, directed for regularization of those employees who had completed 240 days under Work Charge Establishment. However, vide its impugned order dated 3.8.2002 the petitioner was relieved from his services and thereafter he made a representation on 23.8.2002 before the authorities and the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 3.8.2002 vide which he was relieved from service. 3. The counsel for the respondent submits that the Competent Authority and the Finance Department vide its Resolution Memo No. 6394 dated 23.10.1987 directed all the State Government Offices not to make appointment in future at any circumstance and in view of such Resolution, a cut off date was also fixed as 1.1.1998 for avoiding illegal appointment with the concurrence of Government. A decision was also taken vide letter No. 14 dated 3.1.1997 to retrench all those employees who were illegally appointed after 1.1.1988. 4. According to the respondent the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 vide Zonal Chief Engineer's Office order No. 106 dated 28.11.1990 and the same was against the Finance Department's Resolution No. 6394 dated 13.10.1987. 5. However, the petitioner has contended that he was initially appointed on 2.9.1989 and even assuming it to be correct, still then it is after the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1988. 6. The counsel for the respondents has further contended that the initial appointment letter itself indicated that it was purely temporary and provisional and it could be terminated at any point of time without any notice. 7. It has also been stated that such appointments were illegal and not made by the Competent Authority. 8. 6. The counsel for the respondents has further contended that the initial appointment letter itself indicated that it was purely temporary and provisional and it could be terminated at any point of time without any notice. 7. It has also been stated that such appointments were illegal and not made by the Competent Authority. 8. The Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the services of such persons were terminated based on Memo No. 3221 dated 16.7.2002 issued by the Regional Chief Engineer, P.H. Department, Ranchi under Memo No. 571 dated 22.6.2002 wherein a direction was issued that all the staff whose appointment were after the cut off date i.e. 1.1.1988 should be terminated from service. 9. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon a judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Devendra Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 10. According to the petitioner similarly situated employee who was appointed in the year 1986 was regularized and thus the case of the petitioner should also be considered accordingly. 11. I have perused the pleadings and heard the rival contention. 12. The counsel for the petitioner is not correct in stating that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989. According to the respondents the petitioner was appointed in the year 1991 by the Zonal Chief Engineer's Office order No. 106 dated 28.11.1990. Even according to the petitioner as per Annexure-1, which is office order No. 89 dated 2.9.1989 the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary and provisional basis with specific condition that his appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated at any point of time. Assuming the same to be correct, still then it is after the cut off date of 1.1.1988, as per the aforesaid resolution and thus the judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner being (Supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case for the sole reason that therein the petitioner was appointed in April 1986 i.e. prior to the cut off date. 13. 13. The Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand reported in 2005(3) JLJR 38 has held that the "State Government has power to issue administrative instructions by way of supplementing the rules- Government has power to fill-up the gaps in the rules, by issuing administrative instruction, if the rules are silent on the subject, provided the same is not inconsistent with the statutory rules, already framed." It accordingly upheld a similar memo dated 22 October, 1984 which laid down the qualifying period and cut off dated of 21st October, 1984. 14. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the law declared by this Hon'ble Court and in view of the Resolution issued by the Competent Authority vide letter No. 14 dated 3.1.1997 vide which the cut off date was fixed as 1.1.1988 nothing illegal can be attributed to and the same holds the field and even otherwise it has not been challenged by the petitioner and thus there is nothing illegal in relieving the petitioner from his services which was in any case purely temporary and provisional, liable to be terminated without even issuing notice. 15. This writ application being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.