Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 714 (JHR)

Bistu Pramanik v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners, except petitioner No. 7 claiming themselves to be displaced person had approached this Court earlier in W.P.S. No. 4410 of 2003 seeking regularization in service. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure-4) with an observation that there is nothing on record to suggest that any scheme has been framed to regularize the services of daily wage employees. In such circumstances, no specific direction can be given for regularization of service. It was also observed that if there is any scheme framed for regular appointment of persons displaced in pursuance of Subarnarekha Project, petitioners may bring it to notice of the Administrator, Subernarekha Project, Adityapur, Seraikella Kharsawan, who will look into the matter and decide the claim, if possible, within stipulated period. Petitioners pursued contempt thereafter, which was also disposed of vide order dated 2.7.2005 as the matter was being considered by the Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer (Annexure-5). The representation filed by the petitioners stands rejected by the impugned order dated 3.1.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by the Chief Engineer, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project. The same has been assailed by the petitioner by way of instant writ petition filed in November, 2013. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that wrong circular being notification No. 5940 dated 18.6.1993 inapplicable to the case of the petitioners has been relied upon to reject their claim. As per the said circular, the requirement of completion of 240 days by 1.8.1985 was necessary for consideration of case of such daily wagers. Petitioners are displaced persons seeking regularization on the basis of resolution of Water Resources Department, Annexure-3 bearing memo No. 3768 dated 9.12.2002. Therefore, petitioners' case, which has not been considered in terms of the said circular requires to be reconsidered. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that claim of the petitioners was considered in accordance with law by the respondents authorities and rejected by the impugned order giving reasons. It is stated that vacancies are limited and number of land losers are more than the sanctioned posts. Therefore petitioners can avail of the avenues of appointment by participating in the recruitment process under the advertisement made for available vacancies as and when such requirement arises. It is stated that vacancies are limited and number of land losers are more than the sanctioned posts. Therefore petitioners can avail of the avenues of appointment by participating in the recruitment process under the advertisement made for available vacancies as and when such requirement arises. He has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 1216 of 2012 dated 7.8.2013 in the case of Narayan Addi Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, (2013) 4 JLJR 94 . It is submitted that this Court on the said occasion also being conscious with claim of appointment of displaced person under the same project, was pleased to hold that no writ of mandamus or direction can be issued upon the respondents for appointment of such persons under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project as the petitioner has failed to show any rule under which respondents are under statutory obligation to do so on the ground that they are displaced persons. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order, in the factual matrix of the case noticed herein above, the contention of the petitioners that they are required to be considered in terms of the resolution dated 9.12.2002 is of no aid to them because it appears from perusal there of that the same was issued to ensure compliance of the direction passed in W.P.S. No. 3097 of 2001 and MJ.C. No. 160 of 2002 prescribing the time line to undertake exercise for identification of displaced persons/preparation of seniority list and to dispose of their objection/representation finally by 30.9.2003. Petitioners appear to have preferred their claim through W.P.S. No. 4410 of 2003 and from the order of rejection it appears that not only the circular of 18.6.1993 has been noticed therein but the subsequent policy decision of the Water Resources Department in respect of the displaced persons bearing No. 1374 dated 30.9.2004 has been taken into account apart from the fact that there were limited sanctioned post available compared to the large number of claimants as displaced persons. Taking into account all these attendant facts also in W.P.S. No. 1216 of 2012, this Court found that no direction could be issued to the respondents for appointment of one or the other persons like the petitioners therein in the category of fully displaced under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. Taking into account all these attendant facts also in W.P.S. No. 1216 of 2012, this Court found that no direction could be issued to the respondents for appointment of one or the other persons like the petitioners therein in the category of fully displaced under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. The resolution of December, 2002 and the rehabilitation policy of 1990 and 2003 were also noticed in that case. 5. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, claim of the present petitioners for regularization as a displaced person does not seem to be supported by any statutory rule or mandatory rehabilitation policy based upon which direction can be issued. In such circumstances, the impugned order does not seem to suffer from error of law or facts. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.