Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1549 (JHR)

Dhirendra Kumar Satpathy v. State of Jharkhand

2016-11-18

S.N.PATHAK

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard parties. 2. Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for appointment on compassionate ground as the father of the petitioner died in harness, who was posted as Tax Collector in Municipality, Kharsawan. 4. From the factual matrix of the case, it transpires that father of the petitioner was employee under Nagar Panchayat, Seraikella and was posted as Tax Collector in Municipality, Kharsawan who died in harness in the year 1979. After the death of the father the petitioner made representation for compassionate appointment where he was given appointment temporarily on 28.02.1991. The respondent vide letter dated 13.01.1992 recommended his case for regularization. The petitioner continued to render his services to the full satisfaction of the respondents but he was getting only minimum wages for Rs. 20/- per day and as such in the aforesaid circumstances he made representation dated 20.11.1997 before the respondent-authority for regularization of his services made on compassionate ground. 5. It is also stated that Nagar Panchayat in its meeting held on 24.04.2008 took a decision for sanctioning the post of petitioner as peon and to pay Rs. 2550/- per month and the said proposal has been sanctioned. The respondent no. 5 has issued letter vide memo No. 239 to the respondent no. 2 for allotment of fund for payment of salary to the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has rendered 18 years of continuous service on the sanctioned and vacant post of peon but his services has not been regularized till date and no decision has been taken on the representation filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that action on the part of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary and against the settled principle of law and the petitioner cannot be kept on temporary post which is duly sanctioned and vacant for a long period for more than 20 years. 8. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that action on the part of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary and against the settled principle of law and the petitioner cannot be kept on temporary post which is duly sanctioned and vacant for a long period for more than 20 years. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5-Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Seraikella in which facts are admitted that petitioner's father died in harness in the year 1979 and the petitioner was temporarily engaged in the year 1991 in Seraikella Nagar Parishad to assist his family on humanitarian ground. In paragraph No. 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that case of the petitioner has been recommended for regularization of his services and also in paragraph No. 12 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that Nagar Panchayat, Seraikella has taken decision on 27.08.2016 which has been approved by the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Seraikella for making payment of minimum wages to the petitioner i.e. a sum of Rs. 6,750/- per month @ Rs. 255/- per day. In paragraph No. 14 and 20 it has been stated that Executive Officer, Seraikella Nagar Panchayat has demanded fund from Urban Development Department, Jharkhand and also sent reminder vide letter No. 292 dated 06.07.2009 but still no allotment of fund was received from Govt. of Jharkhand. It has been also stated in paragraph No. 23 of the said counter-affidavit that petitioner is receiving remuneration of a sum of Rs. 2650/- since 2009. One supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 on 09.11.2016. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent admitting the contention of the petitioner draws attention of the Court to paragraph No. 13 of the supplementary counter-affidavit which is as follows: “That it is humbly stated and submitted that after receiving guidelines/order from the Urban Development and Housing Department, Jharkhand, the answering deponent will be taking action accordingly.” 10. Having heard the rival contention of the parties and going through the records of the case, I direct the respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella, Kharsawan for taking immediate action on the representation of the petitioner and considering the several recommendations of the respondent-authority regarding regularization and for making payment to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks after receipt of this order. 11. 11. Needless to say that on passing of the order if the petitioner is found entitled for regularization of his services and also for the payments as per recommendation of the respondent-authority of the Municipal Corporation, the services of the petitioner be regularized and the amount for which the petitioner is found entitled to should be paid forthwith within a further period of four weeks. 12. As cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, legal propositions, guidelines, circular and orders, the present writ application is allowed.