Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1467 (JHR)

Arbind Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant him employment in the Class-IV post in any department of the State Government, in the same lines as granted to the similarly situated persons. 3. The petitioner was appointed in the Census Department of the State Government in Class-IV post on 28.10.1991. The census work continued till 1995 whereafter the employees in the Census Department were retrenched. The State Government thereafter took a policy decision to absorb all such employees and issued necessary directions to its various departments to absorb the employees in the Class-III and Class-IV posts. Pursuant to such directions, a list of all such employees were prepared by the Administrative Authorities of the individual districts and roster clearance was also obtained whereafter, several such employees were absorbed in the various districts in the different departments of the State Government. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that though he too was a retrenched employee, but his name was not included in the list prepared by the concerned Deputy Commissioner, as it appears from the statements contained in the counter affidavit of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the aforesaid contention of the Respondents, would refer to the Resolution of the State Government dated 03.11.2004 notified vide Annexure-4 and submit that in the resolution no distinction has been made between those employees working on daily wage basis and those who had worked on the basis of fixed honorarium and yet, the list was prepared containing the names of only those employees who had worked on the basis of fixed honorarium excluding those who had worked on daily wage basis. Learned counsel adds further that when the co-employees were absorbed and the petitioner was left out, he filed several representations (Annexure-6 series) before the concerned authorities of the respondents repeatedly and ultimately when the respondents did not accede to his request, the petitioner filed the instant writ application. 6. From the counter affidavit of the respondents it appears that the petitioner's candidature was not accepted on the ground that his name did not appear in the list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of the district. 6. From the counter affidavit of the respondents it appears that the petitioner's candidature was not accepted on the ground that his name did not appear in the list prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of the district. It is sought to be explained that the list was prepared in respect of only such employees who were working on the basis of the fixed honorarium and not in respect of such employees who were working on daily wage basis. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government Resolution under which the policy decision was taken for absorbing the retrenched employees, does not indicate any distinction made between those employees who were working on daily wage basis and those who were working on a fixed honorarium. It also appears from the counter affidavit that the respondents have not denied the petitioner's claim that he was employed in the Census Department and was subsequently retrenched. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the respondents cannot possibly deny the privilege to the petitioner which was granted to other retrenched employees. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to reconsider the petitioner's claim on the basis of the records pertaining to the Census Department and after confirming as to whether the petitioner was also employed in the Census Department and is one of the retrenched employees and thereafter upon such confirmation, pass appropriate orders for absorption of the petitioner in a vacant post as and when available in the appropriate department under his administrative control. This exercise must be initiated and concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.