Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1044 (JHR)

Umesh Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 29.7.1994 issued by the Assistant Engineer, R.E.O, Chas Division by which his services have been terminated. He has also prayed for reinstatement and regularization of his service in view of the resolution contained at Annexure-6 dated 16.3.2006 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar by which the earlier cut of date of 1.8.1985 for consideration of regularization of such daily wages employees have been extended till 11.12.1990. 3. The petitioner had been engaged as Sectional Peon(Chainman) at Chas under the R.E.O, Works, Sub Division Chas on 1.9.1988. According to him he had completed more than 240 days in one calender year and thereafter he had been discharging his duty continuously till his services were terminated in view of the resolution dated 18.6.1993 as per which petitioner had not been engaged before the cut of date on 1.8.1985. According to the petitioner certain persons were regularized by the respondents as per Annexure-9 dated 30.12.2009 in view of the judgment rendered by full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh and others passed in W.P.S. No. 6826 of 2002 and other analogous cases on 16.5.2005. The petitioner, therefore submits that his case also stands on similar footing to those persons who have been taken in regular establishment from the Work Charged Establishment. In such circumstance, petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order of his termination passed in the year 1994 and for reinstatement / regularization of his services under the respondents. 4. According to learned counsel for the Respondents the petitioner has relied upon circular contained at Annexure-6 dated 16.3.2006 issued by the counter-part successor State of Bihar by which cut of date for consideration of regularization of such daily wages employee has been extended from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1990. The government of Jharkhand has not framed any such policy or adopted such resolution for extending cut of date for absorption, regularization of such daily wages employees. It is further submitted that persons whose names are contained at Annexue-9, Office order dated 30.12.2009 may have been regularized in view of the fact that they had approached this Court earlier and were working under the Work Charged Establishment. It is further submitted that persons whose names are contained at Annexue-9, Office order dated 30.12.2009 may have been regularized in view of the fact that they had approached this Court earlier and were working under the Work Charged Establishment. In such circumstance, in view of the full Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & others , their cases were considered and were taken in regular establishment. However, it is submitted that the said judgment does not hold good for the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatana & others Vrs. Uma Devi & others by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the said judgment rendered by the Apex Court has been explained in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vrs. M.L.Kesari & others reported in 2010(9) SCC 247 . 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the year 1988, and was removed from service in the year 1994 itself by the Office order dated 29.7.1994 issued by the Assistant Engineer, R.E.O, Chas Division. The scheme in vogue at the relevant point of time on 18.6.1993 had fixed the cut of date on 1.8.1985 for consideration of cases of such daily wages employees who have completed more than 240 days in a calender year for their absorption in regular establishment. In such circumstance, services of petitioner and others were terminated who were daily wages employees and engaged after 1.8.1985. The resolution contained at Annexure-6 dated 16.3.2006 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar obviously is not binding upon the Government of Jharkhand neither the Government of Jharkhand has adopted the same. The reliance of the petitioner upon the Office order dated 30.12.2009 under which certain persons were taken in the regular establishment will not come to their aid as the petitioner was engaged on daily wages whereas the employees regularized were working under the Work Charged Establishment. The reliance of the petitioner upon the Office order dated 30.12.2009 under which certain persons were taken in the regular establishment will not come to their aid as the petitioner was engaged on daily wages whereas the employees regularized were working under the Work Charged Establishment. Though the petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment rendered in the case of Ram Prasad Singh & others but after that by the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the person engaged on daily wages / temporary or adhoc arrangement without following the Principles enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to make a back door entry in the regular establishment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has also observed that by way of one time measure by framing a scheme in respect of such persons who were working as daily wages employees for more than 10 years, the respective respondent- State Authorities can consider their case for regularization. In the instant case, however no such scheme has been brought to the notice of the Court under which petitioner can claim consideration for his absorption in the regular establishment. The petitioner has also not completed 10 years as such since his engagement from 1988 till his termination as daily wager in 1994. 7. In such circumstance, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is devoid of any merit. The order of termination is also of the year 1994. The writ petition is otherwise also grossly barred by delay and latches. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.