Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1405 (JHR)

Jodu Pramanik @ Juru Pramanik v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-09

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to add Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan and District Watchmen Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan as party respondent nos. 6 and 7 to this writ petition. 2. In view of the nature of the order, which I am going to pass, it is not necessary to issue notices or to hear the newly added respondents. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to direct the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Chawkidar at Chandil. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was discharging the duty of Chawkidar after the death of the previous Chawkidar Shiva Ghasi since 1990. Further case of the petitioner is that though his case was recommended for being regularized on the post of Chawkidar before the Standing Committee but as it appears that no final decision was taken in the matter in absence of the affidavits from the wife/dependent of the erstwhile Chawkidar namely late Shiva Ghasi. 4. It is stated that subsequently, the affidavits as well as the recommendation were submitted before the concerned respondents but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, wherein it has been stated that after bifurcation of the District all the connected papers of the petitioner for regularization have been sent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan and now the petition has to be decided by him only. 6. Respondent No. 3 Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa as well as Respondent No.5 Officer In-charge, Chandil Police Station have also filed a separate counter affidavit, wherein in paragraph-11 it has been stated that the Standing Committee has not decided the matter of appointment of the petitioner till date and the same is still pending. 7. Considering the above facts, in my view, keeping the matter pending any further would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is being disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan to consider the case of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merit of the claim of the petitioner. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merit of the claim of the petitioner. It is for the Deputy Commissioner to determine the issue on its merit. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.