Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1311 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-16

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : I.A. Nos. 1871/2015, 1691/2015, 1945/2015 and 1872/2015 The petitioners herein admittedly lost challenge to their termination by the respondent-Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. up to the Apex Court which arose out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge such as WPS No. 6625/2006 (Seikh Jabir Ansari & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others), WPS No. 5679/2004 (Mahendra Prasad & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others) and WPS No. 5695/2004 (Md. Yusuf & others vs. The State of Jharkhand & others) vide judgments dated 06.11.2012 and 30.10.2012. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 481/2012, 473/2012 and 483/2012, preferred by the petitioners, were also dismissed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 05.12.2012. The Special Leave to Appeal, preferred by the aggrieved petitioners before the Apex Court, also stood dismissed such as S.L.P.(C) No. 13772/2013 arising out of LPA No. 481/2012, vide judgment dated 10.05.2013. 2. Petitioners had all along contended that they had continued for more than 25 years on the post of Forest Produce Overseer in individual cases under the erstwhile Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and thereafter, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, though initially, they were appointed on daily wage basis and thereafter for the limited period of three months which definitely continued till their termination. Having lost in their challenge to the termination, petitioners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 700/2013 which was heard and decided on 27.01.2014, as per Annexure-13 enclosed to the WPS No. 2172/2014. The judgment of the Apex Court is quoted hereunder for better appreciation. “After arguing for some time, Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner prays and is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. As the matter remained pending before this Court for quite some time and the petitioners' claim that they are struggling for their continuation in the department of the respondent-authority for the last 25 years, if such a petition is filed before the High Court, we request the High Court to decide the petition as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. Both parties are at liberty to raise all factual and legal issues available to them before the High Court.” 3. Both parties are at liberty to raise all factual and legal issues available to them before the High Court.” 3. Taking a cue from the observations made by the Apex Court in the said judgment, these writ petitions were filed seeking regularization in service on the strength of their claim that they had continued for more than 25 years in service till their disengagement. 4. During pendency of the writ applications, Government of Jharkhand came out with the Regularization Rules notified on 13.02.2015 by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, in terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ] laying down the conditions for consideration of claim for regularization of daily wage/temporary employees working under the Government of Jharkhand or its undertakings and who had completed ten years of engagement till the cut-off date 10.04.2006 i.e. the date of judgment in Uma Devi case (Supra). Regularization Rules also prescribe constitution of committee at various level for consideration of the claim for absorption of such applicants. 5. Respondent Corporation also took sometime to take a decision in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2015 through its Board of Directors for constitution of committee for consideration of cases for regularization in service of such daily wage/temporary employees, etc. who had completed more than ten years of service by 10.04.2006 and subject to fulfillment of all other conditions stipulated in the rules. The procedural formality for notification of the committee after concurrence from the respective departments of the State Government including the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Finance Department and Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, were undertaken in the meantime. Finally, by the Notification bearing no. 5230 dated 06.10.2015, (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in WPS No. 2172/2014), the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand constituted a committee in terms of the Regularization Rules. Petitioners in the connected writ petitions have made statements that they had also joined in WPC No. 700/2013 which was decided by the Apex Court on 27.01.2014 with the observations and directions, quoted hereinabove. 6. Writ petitioners in WPS No. 2425/2014 had again preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. Petitioners in the connected writ petitions have made statements that they had also joined in WPC No. 700/2013 which was decided by the Apex Court on 27.01.2014 with the observations and directions, quoted hereinabove. 6. Writ petitioners in WPS No. 2425/2014 had again preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 7628/2013 and 7627/2013 which is said to have been withdrawn by order dated 17.04.2014 in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court in WPC No. 700/2013, quoted hereinabove. According to the respondent Corporation, some of the petitioners may not be the applicants in WPC No. 700/2013 or the subsequent SLP preferred by the petitioner Mahendra Prasad which were withdrawn in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in WPC No. 700/2013. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation however does not dispute that all these petitioners fell on the same footing, so far as the termination of their initial engagement is concerned and had lost in the previous round of litigation. 7. In the wake of the aforesaid background history of litigation of these parties, what appears is that in the writ petition WPC No. 700/2013 which was preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, after the petitioners had lost their initial challenge against their termination, the Apex Court took into account the petitioners' claim that they were struggling for continuation in the department of the respondent authorities for the last 25 years. In such circumstances, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to prefer petition before the High Court with a request to decide as early as possible within a stipulated period giving liberty to the parties to raise all factual and legal issues available to them before the High Court. In the interregnum of the pendency of the writ petition, as noted hereinabove, the State Government has framed its Regularization Rules. This rule was in the offing for a considerable period in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) in 2006 itself. In the interregnum of the pendency of the writ petition, as noted hereinabove, the State Government has framed its Regularization Rules. This rule was in the offing for a considerable period in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) in 2006 itself. Whether the individual petitioners do have the claim for regularization in terms of the rules of 2015 upon satisfaction of the stipulated conditions therein, is a question to be considered by the competent authority under the respondents and duly constituted committee in terms of the Regularization Rules, 2015, as notified through Annexure-A dated 06.10.2015 by the Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change. 8. Counsel for the petitioners have pointed out to the Minutes of the Meeting of officials of the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure-15) as also Annexure-16 to the writ petition WPS No. 2172/2014 being a correspondence between the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation and the General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Circle, Ranchi, Hazarbagh and Deoghar dated 13.05.2013 in support of their contention that the respondents have been inclined on humane consideration to consider the absorption or regularization of such employees who have remained for a considerable length of time despite their initial engagement only for the period of three months under the Corporation. It is submitted that the respondents also deliberated over the fact that most of these petitioners may have crossed their age limit for being a candidate for direct recruitment under the State or its instrumentality. Counsel for the petitioners has therefore made a fervent request that the claim of these petitioners for regularization may be considered by the respondents through the duly constituted committee framed under 2015 Rules in accordance with law, subject to fulfillment of the stipulated conditions. 9. Counsel for the respondent State and the Corporation are not able to dispel the course proposed for consideration of individual cases of petitioners and similarly situated persons for regularization in terms of 2015 Rules framed by the State Government. Whether individual petitioners fulfill the stipulated conditions laid down therein on merits after due application of mind and consideration, is another question on which this Court is not inclined to make any comments. Whether individual petitioners fulfill the stipulated conditions laid down therein on merits after due application of mind and consideration, is another question on which this Court is not inclined to make any comments. However, fact remains that the services of the petitioners and similarly situated persons have been taken whether on daily wage or temporary basis continuously in the individual cases for more than two decades; whether their engagement would entitle them a claim for regularization, is something which is required to be considered by the duly constituted committee in accordance with law. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be appropriate that the petitioners may be given a window of hope in view of specific observations made by the Apex Court in WPC No. 700/2013 to stake their claim for regularization before the respondent Corporation by filing individual detailed representation duly supported with all necessary facts and documents. Needless to say, due consideration should be accorded to such a claim in accordance with law and the Rules of 2015 by the respondent Corporation within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of six months. 11. All these writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pending I.As stand closed.