Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 884 (JHR)

Kundan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for consideration of his representation dated 20.12.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Zanjir Wahak (Chainman) on 11.09.1989. He was transferred on 18.12.1989 and his service was terminated on 22.02.1997 on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4186 of 2002 challenging the order of termination dated 22.02.1997 which was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2008. It appears that in another proceeding, i.e. W.P.(S) No. 5579 of 2003 by order dated 29.02.2012 a direction was issued to the respondent-State for regularizing the service of the employees in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others”, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court in “Gopal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others”, reported in 2005 (4) JLJR 614 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the decision of this Court in the case noticed-above, the petitioner filed the representation. Since the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. A perusal of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4186 of 2002 which was preferred by the petitioner challenging his order of termination, would disclose that this Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner for the reason that the initial appointment of the petitioner was found illegal and there was a delay of more than five years in preferring the said writ petition. 5. The decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5579 of 2003 would disclose that the employees had failed to produce Displacement Certificate on the basis of which they had claimed compassionate appointment whereas, the facts of the present case are different. 6. In “Gopal Singh Vs. 5. The decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5579 of 2003 would disclose that the employees had failed to produce Displacement Certificate on the basis of which they had claimed compassionate appointment whereas, the facts of the present case are different. 6. In “Gopal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others” (supra), a direction was issued in view of the fact that the employees had continued for work for more than ten years on the posts which were sanctioned posts and therefore, a direction was issued to the State of Bihar as well as the State of Jharkhand to device a scheme for regularization of the services of such employees. As it would be evident from the facts of this case that the petitioner had not completed a period of ten years of service. His service was terminated on the ground of being illegal at the initial stage itself. Moreover, benefit of a subsequent decision cannot be extended to the cases which were concluded long back. 7. I find no merit in the writ petition, accordingly it is dismissed.