Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 254 (JHR)

Ram Dayal Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-17

D.N.PATEL

body2009
Order Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are working since long with the respondent authorities as daily wages workmen. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that thereafter a Contempt Case(C) bearing Nos. 229 of 2002 and 175 of 2002 was instituted wherein also the case of those petitioners alike the present petitioners, direction was given to consider the case. 3. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Letters Patent Appeal No. 649 of 2002 as well as Letters Patent Appeal No. 658 of 2002 was preferred by the State of Jharkhand and others wherein again the direction was given to consider the case of those petitioners who are similarly situated alike the present petitioners in Paragraph-7 of the order passed in both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal dated 24th January, 2005 read as under:- "In the circumstances, we direct the appellant-State of Jharkhand and its Officers including the concerned Divisional Forest Officers to give preference to daily wagers like the writ petitioners/respondents over outsiders, as and when Class-IV posts including the post of Forest Guards are filled up in near future and to give them age relaxations, if they are found overage. However, this direction will be limited to only those daily wage workmen/employees who are still working under the State Government and not to those who have already been retrenched/not in service." In view of the aforesaid direction none of the respondents are obeying the aforesaid direction for giving employment. The present petitioners are also working with the respondent authorities since long and therefore, similar treatment may be given which has been given in aforesaid paragraph-7 and in the aforesaid order passed in both the Letters Patent Appeal. 4. I have heard counsel for the respondents who submitted that there is no illegality in giving such type of appointment and, therefore, they have to compete with other eligible candidates on the post of Class-IV employees. 5. 4. I have heard counsel for the respondents who submitted that there is no illegality in giving such type of appointment and, therefore, they have to compete with other eligible candidates on the post of Class-IV employees. 5. I have heard both sides and looking to the order passed by this court as stated hereinabove also looking to the facts with the present petitioners, who are working since more than one decade and also keeping in mind and looking to the facts that there is no grievance ventilated by the respondents about the working efficiency of the petitioners nor stigma attached to the services of the petitioners. 6. I hereby direct the State of Jharkhand and its officers including the concerned Divisional Forest Officers to give preference to daily wagers like the writ petitioners over outsiders as and when Class-IV posts including the post of Forest Guards are filled up in near future and to give them age relaxation, if they are found overage. However, this direction will be limited to only those daily wage workmen/employees who are still working as on date of filing of the writ petition under the State Government and not to those who have already been retrenched/not in service as on date of filing of the writ petition dated 2nd August, 2.007. 7. It also appears from the paragraph of the Letters Patent Appeal orders of the Division Bench of this Court has given direction to give preference to daily wagers like the writ petitioners. 8. The words "like the writ petitioners/respondents over outsiders" used in paragraph-7 while finally disposing of both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal includes the case of the present petitioners also because present petitioners also like those petitioners and therefore, also the aforesaid direction has been given by this court to make position clearer, otherwise, there is already a direction given in the order passed by the Division Bench by this Court in both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal. 9. This writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid direction.