Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 869 (JHR)

Padmawati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-13

DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

body2011
ORDER D.N. Patel, J. 1. Present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the services of the petitioner's husband may be regularized and now as he has expired, the petitioner may be given compassionate appointment and the petitioner is also entitled to all the retiral benefits because of death of her husband. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of the present petitioner had been working for approximately 22 years as a casual labourer with the respondents and he has expired on 20th May, 2002. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a circular issued by the respondents at Annexure-6 dated 10th May, 2005 and has pointed out that in pursuance of this circular, the services of the husband of the petitioner may be regularized and all the benefits flowing from the said regularization may be given to the present petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in contempt case being M.J.C. No.606 of 2000 with other similarly situated contempt applications which is dated 15th June, 2002. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.18154 of 1999 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30th October, 2000 and has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid decision also, the present petitioner is entitled to all the benefits flowing from regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner who has expired on 20th May, 2002. 4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no legally vested right to the petitioner for the prayer made in the present petition. Moreover, there is gross delay in filing the present petition as the husband of the petitioner has died in the year 2002 whereas the present petition has been preferred in the year 2011. Moreover, the services of the husband of the petitioner cannot be regularized on the basis of Annexure-6 to the memo of petition and hence also, the petition of the present petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following reasons:-- (i) The husband of the present petitioner was working with the respondents as alleged by the petitioner as a casual labourer. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following reasons:-- (i) The husband of the present petitioner was working with the respondents as alleged by the petitioner as a casual labourer. He expired on 20th May, 2002 and the present petition has been preferred in the year 2011 i.e. after several years from the date of death of the petitioner's husband. Thus there is gross delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring this petition. (ii) Moreover, looking to the claim of the petitioner, it appears that petitioner seeks regularization of the services of her husband on the basis of Annexure-6 to the memo of petition. Looking to the Annexure-6 it appears that it has been issued by the State of Bihar on 10th May, 2005. The State of Jharkhand bifurcated from erstwhile State of Bihar on and from 15th November. 2000 and therefore, the circular issued by the State of Bihar in the year 2005 is not" binding to the State of Jharkhand. Similarly, counsel for the petitioner is also relying upon Annexure-9 i.e. letter No. 1760 dated 03.10.2009. Looking to this annexure also, no benefit can be extended to the present petitioner mainly for the reason that Annexure-9 is an order passed In pursuance of the order passed in SLP (Civil) No. 18154/1999 dated 30th October, 2000. Neither the present petitioner nor the husband of the petitioner was a party to the said S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In pursuance of the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and from the contempt matter being M.J.C. No.606 of 2000, the order at Annexure-9 has been passed. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner was not a party to the writ petition before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1213 of 2003, nor in S.L.P. as stated above. (iii) Moreover, it further appears that regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner depends upon several facts. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner was not a party to the writ petition before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1213 of 2003, nor in S.L.P. as stated above. (iii) Moreover, it further appears that regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner depends upon several facts. In this set of circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner who has already expired on 20th May, 2002 and therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled to any benefit flowing from such a regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner. (iv) For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.