Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1272 (JHR)

Tilakdhari Ravidas v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularisation. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The petitioners were selected as Instructors and they were paid honorarium @ Rs. 200/, Rs. 125/ and Rs. 105/ per month in different units under the Non-Formal Education Scheme of the Government. In the writ petition, the petitioners have stated as under, 9. That, it is humbly submitted and stated that the petitioners were appointed during the year, 1981 to 1998. They continued working as instructor of different centres as per their allotment as per the scheme of the Government. 10. That, it would be relevant to state here that almost all the petitioners have the qualification of Matriculation and Graduation and many of them have crossed their upper age limit to get any other government job. 11. That, it is equally pertinent to submit here that Non-Formal Education System was attached with the Adult Education Directorate with a new name of Adult and Non-Formal Directorate. 12. That, it would be out of place to mention here that the petitioners were working as Non-Formal Instructors from the dates of their selection and appointment and were under the impression that their services would be absorbed as regular teachers in a primary school, as they were discharging their duties attached to the post of primary school teachers. 13. That, it would be highly pertinent to submit here that all of a sudden the Directorate, Mass Education, the petitioners were informed that all the centres are being closed. They were directed to deposit the articles given to them for the purpose of running the centres. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating as under : 7. “That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioners were engaged as instructors in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme namely Non-Formal Education. The claim of the petitioners for absorption in the Government service by the State of Jharkhand has no merit because they worked under the said scheme as part time instructors for two hours per day for which the fixed honorarium @ Rs. 105/per month up to 1994 and @ Rs. 200/ per month from 1995 onwards was admissible to them. They were never appointed against any post or in any scale of pay. 105/per month up to 1994 and @ Rs. 200/ per month from 1995 onwards was admissible to them. They were never appointed against any post or in any scale of pay. Rather, they were selected locally as volunteers for teaching at Non-Formal Education Center for two hours per day till prescribed period of the Centre. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioners were never Government servants. The work of the instructor was not an employment under State Government but it was like a social service. 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Non-Formal Education Scheme was a time bound Centrally Sponsored Scheme, which was wound up by the Government of India with effect from 01.04.2001. Subsequently, the State of Jharkhand decided to close the said scheme w.e.f. 15.05.2001 itself. 10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the issues in C.W.J.C. No. 18813/2010 are found to be covered by a decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8418/2010 as mentioned above. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that necessary information regarding action taken by the Bihar Government in the light of Hon'ble High Court order in C.W.J.C. No. 8418/2010 and 8110/2010 was sought from the Director, Mass Education, Bihar Government vide Directorate of Primary Education Jharkhand letter no. 611 (Vidhi) dated 28.08.2012. 12. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the information regarding action taken by the Bihar Government on the order dated 29.04.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 8418/2010 and 8110/2010 was received from Director, Mass Education-cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar Government, Patna vide his letter no. 2130 dated 30.08.2012. 13. That it is humbly stated and submitted that from the aforesaid letter it is clear that the Bihar Government has preferred appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 1489/2011, against the order of the Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8418/2010. 14. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the Hon'ble Patna High Court after hearing the L.P.A. No. 1489/2011, passed in interim order on 10.04.2012 staying the operation of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8418/2010.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners though were appointed on honorarium basis, suddenly in the year, 2001 the Scheme was closed and the petitioners were rendered jobless. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners though were appointed on honorarium basis, suddenly in the year, 2001 the Scheme was closed and the petitioners were rendered jobless. A learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (S) No. 658 of 2009 dated 22.08.2012 [“Anaupcharik Shiksha Prashikshit Anudeshak Sangh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.”], has observed that, 'the authorities may take sympathetic view so that the petitioners may not be left to starve'. He has further submitted that a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 1489 of 2011 is still pending before the Hon'ble Patna High Court and the outcome of the said case would have a bearing on this case. 6. On perusal of the documents on record, I find that the petitioners have themselves stated that they were employed under a Scheme. In the year, 2001 the said Scheme was closed. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the claim of the petitioners. A perusal of order dated 22.08.2012 would indicate that no decision on merit was given by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 658 of 2009. Adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the final outcome of L.P.A. No. 1489 of 2011 would have a bearing on this case, I find myself unable to accept such contention. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.