Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 672 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Nandkeshwar Ram

2014-06-30

P.P.BHATT, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
ORDER 1.This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 01.02.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2931 of 2004 and other analogous matter, in and by which the writ Court set aside the order of termination and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondents to their respective posts with full back wages. 2. Brief facts:- Respondent No. 1, Nandkeshwar Ram, was initially appointed on 21.09.1983 through office order No. 39/A dated 29.07.1985 vide memo No. 1396 and has been working in the office of Block Development Officer, Mahuadarh in the district of Latehar as an Assistant, Respondent No.2, Bishwanath prasad Singh, was appointed as Daily Wages Worker since 1980 as an Orderly by office order No. 61 dated 19.10.1985, vide memo no. 1987 and has been working as Night Guard in the office of Divisional forest Officer, State Trading Division, Koderma. Respondent no. 3, Parmanand Mishra, was given appointment letter vide letter no. 291 dated 04.10.1986 memo No. 5662 and has been working as Orderly in Forest Range Office, Division, Koderma. 3. The husband of Respondent no. 4, late Shambhu Ram, was a Daily Wages Worker and after his death the respondent no. 4, Smt. Mina Devi, was given appointment on compassionate ground vide office order No. 6 dated 06.01.1999 in terms of memo no. 28. At present she is working in the forest Division, State Trading Division, Koderma. The husband of Respondent No. 5, late Sukhu Mahto, was working as Daily Wages Worker and after his death, the Respondent no.5, Smt. Kunti Devi, was given appointment on compassionate ground vide office order no. 96 dated 07.09.1998. 4. The respondents have enclosed the copy of the proceedings of the Establishment committee to show that all of them including the husbands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed prior to 1st August 1985 on Daily Wages and subsequently their cases were considered for regular appointment to different posts and on the basis of the recommendation of the Establishment committee, they were appointed. 5. The State Government issued guidelines vide Resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993, whereby it was decided to terminate the services of only those Daily Wages employees who were appointed after 1st August, 1985. One Madan Mohan Prasad was working in the State Trading Division, Koderma, moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2001. 5. The State Government issued guidelines vide Resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993, whereby it was decided to terminate the services of only those Daily Wages employees who were appointed after 1st August, 1985. One Madan Mohan Prasad was working in the State Trading Division, Koderma, moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2001. In the said writ petition, vide order dated 10.07.2003, the writ Court issued direction to cancel all the illegal appointments. Pursuant to the said order, show cause notices were issued to the respondents calling upon them to explain as to why their services should not be terminated. Subsequently, vide office order dated 26.05.2004, the services of the respondents were terminated. 6. The respondents filed W.P.(S) No. 2931 of 2004 and the same was allowed holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the husbands of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were engaged prior to 1st August, 1985, and without taking into consideration the aforesaid guidelines issued by the State, vide Resolution No. 5940 dated 18.06.1993, the respondent authorities issued the impugned orders of termination after 20 years of their engagement. Holding that the order of termination is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is also vitiated by non-application of mind on the part of the authorities, learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination and directed the authorities to reinstate the respondents in their respective posts with back wages. 7. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned G.P for the appellants and Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Kumar submitted that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were not appointed by the competent authority and, therefore, they have no right to continue in service. It is further submitted that the appointment of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were in violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since neither advertisement was published nor names were called up from the employment exchange and even the roster of reservation has not been taken care of. It was further submitted that merely because the respondents were working for a long period, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination and, therefore the order of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that merely because the respondents were working for a long period, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination and, therefore the order of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were appointed way back in the year 1983 and they were continuing in service and while so the authorities were not right in terminating the services of the respondents. It is contended that since the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were appointed much prior to 1.08.1985, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondents with full back wages and the impugned order does not need any interference. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, all the respondents were reinstated in the respective posts and have been working till date. 10. As pointed earlier, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were engaged and worked as daily wagers from the year 1983. As per Resolution No. 5940 dated 18.06.1993, those engaged prior to 1985 are to be continued and their cases were to be considered being regular appointment. As pointed out by learned Single Judge inspite of the fact that respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were engaged much prior to 1.08.1985, the authorities without taking into consideration the aforesaid guidelines, issued by the State in the said Resolution No. 5940 dated 18.06.1993, passed the order of termination, terminating the services of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The termination was not in accordance with the Resolution No. 5940 dated 18.06.1993, as the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were engaged much prior to 1985, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order of termination and directed that respondents be reinstated in their respective post with full back wages. We do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge warranting interference. 11. 1 to 3 and husbands of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were engaged much prior to 1985, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order of termination and directed that respondents be reinstated in their respective post with full back wages. We do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge warranting interference. 11. Vide order dated 27.07.2006, the Court has passed the following order: “The appellants shall file counter affidavit before the date of hearing and shall inform this Court about the action taken against the officers, by way of disciplinary proceeding, suspension etc., if according to the appellants, such appointment was illegal. We are constrained by the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the same cannot be ignored. The appellants must inform this court about the action taken against the officers, who have given the illegal appointment. It is made clear that we have not stayed the operation of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in furtherance of the above order passed by this Court dated 27.07.2006, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Narendra Mishra (the petitioner who filed the intervening application being I.A. No. 3134 of 2006 in the present L.P.A). It is further submitted that after enquiry, it was found that the charges against the said Narendra Mishra was not found proved and the disciplinary proceeding was dropped. 14. The intervener-Narendra Mishra has also filed a supplementary affidavit dated 11.04.2014 annexing therewith the memorandum of charge as Annexure I/H. In view of Annexure I/H, filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 11.04.2014 filed by the intervener, no further direction is required in respect of said intervener-Narendra Mishra. 15. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 3134 of 2006 is closed.