JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the present set of writ petitions, common grievance has been raised seeking confirmation in service under Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioners herein are working since their appointment between 1979-80 continuously even after their services got allocated to the successor State of Jharkhand, but they have not been granted financial up-gradation apparently on the ground that their services were not confirmed. Individual petitioners in their pleadings have sought to convey that appointment of one or other petitioners were made by virtue of proper selection exercise, which also involved interview and was against sanctioned and vacant post by the competent authority. Despite that the department did not confirm their services. Some of them have come in 2nd round after their claim have been rejected. 3. Respondent-Department has taken a stand that there is question mark relating to appointment of several persons by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (Administration) Ranchi and of different Divisions during the relevant period of time as their power were withdrawn. The case of the individual writ petitioners have been contested through earlier affidavits by the respondent-Department that they are not entitled for confirmation as the whole requirement of procedure in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India was not followed. In between, petitioners cited example of two persons namely Yogendra Prasad and Surendra Choudhary, whose services were confirmed by the respondent-Department in the year 2009-10. They also relied upon the instances of employees, who were allocated to the successor State of Bihar on bifurcation of the parent State and have been confirmed in service from the initial date of their appointment, after the department undertook an exercise of scrutiny of individual cases through three man committee in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 . This Court while considering the individual writ petitions on one or other dates, found that there are instances of several such persons working in the Commercial Taxes Department said to have been appointed between in the year 1979-80 in similar manner. This Court while considering the individual writ petitions on one or other dates, found that there are instances of several such persons working in the Commercial Taxes Department said to have been appointed between in the year 1979-80 in similar manner. Considering scale of such appointment made at a particular point of time and appointees have continued in the department and also said to be enjoying regular scale of pay, but without any confirmation or regularization till date, by a detailed order passed on 12.8.2015 in WP (S) No. 259 of 2013, WP (S) No. 869 of 2013 and WP (S) No. 896 of 2013, this Court gave time to the respondent-department to come out with a considered stand with proper application of mind taking into regard all attendant facts, provisions of law and instances referred to therein as well. For better appreciation order dated 12.8.2015 is quoted herein-under:- "Petitioners herein came with a prayer for confirmation of their services in absence of which financial up-gradation is not being granted to them. The petitioners herein, who have been appointed in 1979-80 by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration), Ranchi Division, are continuing to discharge their duties in the said department till date. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that there are several such persons, who are waiting for confirmation of their services, but still working in the Department. It is also informed that number of them have also retired and are receiving post retirement benefits from State Exchequer. It is also stated that for more than last 30 years all these persons are being paid their salary from State Exchequer in regular pay scale with increments and pay revision as implemented from time to time. It is also true that persons appointed during the same period by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, whose services now fall within successor State of Bihar have been regularized or granted permanency in service from their initial date of their appointment. Such orders are enclosed to the I.A. No. 3936 of 2015 in WP (S) No. 259 of 2013. Such decision was taken by the successor State of Bihar by undergoing the entire process as conceived under the observation made in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 through a three-man committee. Such decision was taken by the successor State of Bihar by undergoing the entire process as conceived under the observation made in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 through a three-man committee. It is also undisputed by the respondents that one Yogendra Prasad, who was appointed as counter clerk on 19.11.1979 by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) Ranchi Division, his services has been confirmed w.e.f. 28.3.1983 vide Annexure-6 dated 29.9.2010 issued by the same Commercial Tax Department. In the face of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the respondents while considering the case relating to confirmation of one of the present petitioner in WP (S) No. 259 of 2013 have chosen to reject his claim vide order dated 15.1.2015 taking a plea that the appointments were not undertaken by following due procedure of advertisement and against sanctioned post and by following reservation roster. The petitioner herein has counter claim relying upon the relevant Annexures-1, 2 and 3 that such appointments were made after advertisement, interview and selection. In any case it is within conscious knowledge of the respondent-Department that these persons have continued in service for more 30 years. It is wholly inexplicable as to why the respondents at no point earlier also took any decision in relation to question of permanency of these petitioners or regularization or termination of their services if at all there was certain irregularities/illegalities in their appointment. If these facts are true then the respondent-Department has responsibility to answer as to why they have taken a discriminatory approach vis-a-vis these petitioners or others compared to Yogendra Prasad who is serving in the same Department and may be those who were born out of the same appointment process and now stand confirmed in the State of Bihar. The only distinction to the latter example would be that the competent authority has been changed i.e. State of Bihar. However, the appointments have been made by the Authority of the parent State of Bihar in the years 1979-80 from which source those persons falling in either of the Successor States trace their origin. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that there are several such matters pending in this Court of such persons seeking confirmation in their services. It is also informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that there are several such matters pending in this Court of such persons seeking confirmation in their services. This itself depicts that the department has failed to take a considered decision in respect of the services of such employees. This Court may have been burdened by unnecessary litigation. It is, therefore, felt necessary that before adjudicating on the individual facts of one or the other petitioner, a considered response of the department after due application of mind in respect of such persons working in Commercial Taxes Department is brought forth so that there is consistency in stand of the department in respect of all such persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Prasad and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2012 (1) JCR 477 (Jhr) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand, (2014) 7 SCC 223 on the point that the persons who trace common origin of their appointment in the parent State of Bihar should not be discriminated in matters of confirmation or regularization only on account of historic event of creation of two successor States. It would not be out of place that Regularization Rule of 2015 has also been framed by the respondent-Government. The respondents in the present writ petitions were seeking time on all previous dates that the Regularization Rules were in the process to be framed. Impugned decision dated 15.1.2015 has however come suddenly just before framing of the Regularization Rules, 2015 vide notification dated 13.2.2015. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, therefore, is seeking short time for obtaining a considered stand of the respondent-Commercial Tax Department on such an issue which may have repercussion on a large number of employees working in the Department. It is expected that department like a model employer would come forth with a considered stand with proper application of mind taking into regard all attendant facts, provisions of law and instances referred hereinabove as well. For the aforesaid purpose, therefore the matter is adjourned to be listed on 9.9.2015. It would only be appropriate that a responsible official of the respondent-Commercial Taxes Department be also present to assist the Court with all relevant records on the next date. For the aforesaid purpose, therefore the matter is adjourned to be listed on 9.9.2015. It would only be appropriate that a responsible official of the respondent-Commercial Taxes Department be also present to assist the Court with all relevant records on the next date. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent-State." 4. The respondent-Department has thereafter filed supplementary counter affidavit. Learned AAG appearing on their behalf states that Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa has notified "Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Awam Karyrat Karmiyo Ki Seva Niyamitikaran Niyamwali, 2015" vide notification dated 13.2.2015, Annexure-A. It is also stated that pursuant to the said Rules framed in compliance of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject, a committee has been constituted to consider cases of irregularly appointed employees, who are presently working vide office order dated 27.8.2015, Annexure-B. It is stated that department has further decided to consider the cases of all such employees, who are working and whose services have not been confirmed. Dates itself have been notified by the Committee for different Division under the respondent-Department. All Divisional Joint Commissioner (Administration) have been directed to be present on the date as per the direction contained in letter dated 2.9.2015, Annexure-C. Based upon the aforesaid exercise, the Department will take a final decision on the issue of regularization of the services of the employees, who are working and whose services have not been regularized. Certain averments have also been made in respect of the individual contention of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Sinha in the said affidavit as also on merit of the case. Learned AAG, however, submits that irrespective of the facts that earlier the claim of few persons have been rejected on individual consideration dehors the Regularization Rules, 2015, now since a comprehensive exercise is being undertaken in respect of all such employees appointed in that period, the respondent-department would reconsider such cases, which were earlier rejected on one or other grounds including the case of two writ petitioners in WP (S) No. 4114 of 2015 and WP (S) No. 4115 of 2015. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners bear apprehension that affidavit filed on behalf of the department in individual cases, have been equivocal so far as the legality of the appointment of individual persons is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners bear apprehension that affidavit filed on behalf of the department in individual cases, have been equivocal so far as the legality of the appointment of individual persons is concerned. At this point of time after having served for more than 30-32 years in the department and in the wake of the cogent material documents in their support, respondents should not reject the individual cases of such persons on the ground that appointment itself was illegal. Another apprehension urged is that under the Regularization Rules, 2015, if at all the claim of the individual persons is found fit to be regularized, then also regularization would be given effect to from the date of such regularization as per provisions of Regularization Rules, 2015 and not from the initial date of their appointment, which would prejudice their cases. It is submitted that their counterpart in the State of Bihar have been regularized from the date of their entry in service. 6. Learned AAG in response submits that department is obliged to considered the case of all such persons only in terms of Statutory Rules, 2015, which has been notified on 13.2.2015 and in terms of the conditions laid down thereunder. Rules are not under challenge. The case of each such persons, who are said to be appointed in the particular period 1979-80 are going to be scrutinized by the Committee in terms of the Statutory Rules. At this stage, therefore, the petitioners should subject themselves to the scrutiny so that a considered decision can be taken by the duly constituted committee in the matter of their appointment for taking a final decision. It is submitted that if the decision goes against one or other persons, it is always open to them to challenge before the Appropriate Forum without prejudice to their rights while submitting before the Committee. 7. I have considered the issues involved in the instant matters, which have remained burning over a period of time. Individual persons have continued in the respondents Commercial Taxes Department for long length of time i.e. for more than 30 years in individual cases and some of them have also superannuated. These facts have also taken note of in the order dated 12.8.2015 quoted hereinabove. Individual persons have continued in the respondents Commercial Taxes Department for long length of time i.e. for more than 30 years in individual cases and some of them have also superannuated. These facts have also taken note of in the order dated 12.8.2015 quoted hereinabove. In any case, no proper consideration of individual cases have been accorded by the respondent-Department till before the present exercise in terms of any statutory Rules. It is only upon framing of Regularization Rules, 2015 in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) that such consideration is now being accorded after the department were directed to take a considered decision in the previous order dated 12.8.2015. 8. At this stage therefore, it is proper that cases of all such persons be considered by the duly constituted committee in accordance with law. The individual petitioners would furnish all relevant material facts, documents in support of their claim through proper channel before the committee on the dates notified. The committee may, if required, hold the proceeding for scrutiny on more than one dates, as per exigency and requirement to accord a proper consideration to individual cases. Individual persons may also be given an opportunity to present their cases before the committee as the decision taken would have repercussion on their entire service career. If cases of persons, who have superannuated, are also falling in the same category and such claims of their regularization require consideration, the Committee would consider such cases as well on date fixed through prior notice. Needles to say that the Committee while examining individual cases would keep into mind the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and also in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, 2010 (9) SCC 247 . 9. At this stage, therefore, this Court does consider that a proper objective consideration of such individual claims under the Regularization Rules, 2015 is justified. The apprehension of the petitioners is misplaced. The committee would make independent application of mind without being prejudiced by any previous stand taken by the respondent-department. 9. At this stage, therefore, this Court does consider that a proper objective consideration of such individual claims under the Regularization Rules, 2015 is justified. The apprehension of the petitioners is misplaced. The committee would make independent application of mind without being prejudiced by any previous stand taken by the respondent-department. Since all such matters are now required to be considered by the aforesaid committee, the orders impugned dated 15.1.2015 in WP (S) No. 259 of 2013, 6.3.2013 in WP (S) No. 1817 of 2013, 2.12.2014 in WP (S) No. 4114 of 2015 and 2.12.2014 in WP (S) No. 4115 of 2015 would not come into the way of the committee and the department to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. 10. It is expected that the committee and the respondent-Department would take a considered decision on individual cases of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 12 weeks subject to any genuine reason for extension of time. 11. These writ petitions stand disposed of.