Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 108 (JHR)

Satya Prakash v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-14

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application the petitioner has, interalia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.02.2015 issued by respondent no. 3 pertaining to removal of the petitioner from the post of driver at B.D.O. Office, Meral, Garhwa and for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to the post of driver in B.D.O. Office, Meral. 2. The facts as disclosed, in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the post of driver fell vacant due to demise of deputationist Dhirendra Kumar Singh in the Office of Block Development Officer, Meral and the petitioner was engaged on 13.10.2010 as jeep driver in B.D.O. Office, Meral on daily wage basis. The petitioner continuously discharged his duty on the said post without any blemish and the authorities were satisfied with his duty and conduct and accordingly, experience certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Block Development Officer, Garhwa vide Annexure5 to the writ application. The petitioner under RTI sought information from the BDO office that what was the circumstances under which he has been removed from the post of driver upon which a reply was given on 14.02.2015 that the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with due to some unavoidable circumstances, vide Annexure7 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner submitted representation dated 31.03.2015 before the respondent nos. 2 & 3 but the said representation have not evoked any response from the respondent authorities. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been, interalia, submitted that the petitioner has been engaged with full knowledge as a driver on daily wage basis that he will not have any claim of regularization in future. Therefore, no claim is made out and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. The termination of the petitioner has been made only because of non availability of the work. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that the averments in paragraph no. 16 of the writ application has not been controverted by the respondents in the counteraffidavit. The engagement of another person in place of the petitioner by the respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that the averments in paragraph no. 16 of the writ application has not been controverted by the respondents in the counteraffidavit. The engagement of another person in place of the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 could not have been made on ad hoc basis and the temporary and daily wages employees could not have been placed by another ad hoc/ daily wage employee. Be as it may, since, the appointment of the petitioner was made against on daily wage basis, the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right for regularization in services. However, if any regular selection will be made on the said post, the petitioner's case ought to be considered taking into consideration the services rendered by petitioner as a driver. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it would be apposite for the ends of justice to dispose of the writ application with direction to respondent nos. 2 & 3 that if any regular selection in future is made on the post of driver, the case of the petitioner ought to be considered taking into account the services rendered by the petitioner on daily wages from 13.10.2010 to 14.02.2015. During interregnum period till filling up the aforesaid post on regular basis, if a need arises on administrative exigency to fill up post on adhoc/daily wage basis the respondents shall do well to consider the case of petitioner for the same. 6. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of.