Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 551 (JHR)

Ram Nath Lal Das v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner admittedly was under contractual engagement on the post of Procurement Officer under JNNURM, a centrally sponsored project, by the Urban Development Ministry. He was initially appointed for a period of three years on contract basis which was extended for one year. That engagement has not been renewed by the respondents as per the impugned letter dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-30) issued by the Urban Development Department addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated other persons have been granted extension of services vide annexure-20 by order dated 13.06.2014 for a period up to 31.03.2015. It is also his case that Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad through letter dated 28.06.2014 to the Secretary, Urban Development Department (Annexure-23), made a recommendation that the services of the petitioner can be extended. Despite that, impugned letter has conveyed the decision of the Department that there is no necessity of giving extension to the petitioner beyond March 2014. However, according to the petitioner, it would appear from the impugned letter itself that the petitioner has discharged his duties till November 2014, as the order impugned is of the same date, where-after petitioner has been disengaged. He has represented before the Secretary, Urban Development Department for extension of his service like others and also for payment of his admissible contractual dues. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the engagement of the petitioner was on contract under the centrally sponsored project and after due consideration of letters written by the Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, it has been decided that the services of the petitioner cannot be extended beyond March 2014. He therefore does not have a legal right for extension of his service. Learned counsel for the respondents however submits that so far as the claim for payment of dues of salary is concerned, the same can be considered by the competent authority, if it is so that the petitioner has been made to discharge his duties for the said period. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents however submits that so far as the claim for payment of dues of salary is concerned, the same can be considered by the competent authority, if it is so that the petitioner has been made to discharge his duties for the said period. 5. For the reason that his engagement was on contract basis for three years which was subject to extension for one year at one go, the Department after due consideration of the recommendation of the Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, did not consider it proper to extend his services as it is not required. Further, it appears that by the impugned order itself, Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation has been directed to ensure payment of any outstanding dues as per rules. It further appears that the claim for parity by the petitioner with others is also not made out as they are made on independent consideration relating to requirement of services of such officers and such extension of service has come to an end on 31.03.2015, as per annexure-20 dated 13.06.2014. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts therefore, claim for extension of contractual engagement of the petitioner is not made out in law as well as on facts. For the remaining grievances relating to salary for the period of his engagement, petitioner is allowed to approach the Respondent No. 3-Municipal Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer-cum-Administrator, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad with a representation together with all necessary facts and documents who would consider the same in accordance with law after due verification of the all relevant record relating to discharge of duties for the period in question by the petitioner and take a decision thereupon within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.