Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 514 (JHR)

Har Gauri Kisku v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-28

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. 1. After dismissal of W.P. (S) No. 5660 of 2003 vide impugned judgment/order dated 11th December, 2014, out of 39 writ petitioners only 13 have chosen to file the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is at admission stage but with the consent of learned counsel for both sides we have taken it on Board for final consideration. 2. Admittedly, appellants and others who were engaged in Water Resources (Irrigation Department) of the State of Bihar on daily wage basis between 1979 to 1985, were removed from services in 1994, which gave them a cause to file writ petition being CWJC No. 2202 of 1995 which was dismissed by learned writ Court, aggrieved thereof they have filed Letters Patent Appeal, which was withdrawn by the appellants and others with a liberty to file review petition. Consequently, Civil Review No. 272 of 1997 was filed in Patna High Court, which was disposed of with observation that while considering the case of petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of Resolution no.5940 dated 18th June, 1993 and the judgment rendered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Laghu Sichai Karmchari Sangh and others passed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18164 of 1999, their removal will not have any affect. When petitioners and others were not reinstated, they once again knocked the door of the writ Court through medium of CWJC No. 2286 of 1999, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8th April, 2002 with the following observation:- “Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as the petitioners claim that they were working in the Santhal Parganas region which now falls within the State of Jharkhand, they are given liberty to bring the matter along with this order as well as the order of the Supreme Court to the notice of the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi who, in its turn, will consider the cases of petitioners and to determine as to whether they are also covered by the Supreme Court's decision in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18164/99, the Resolution No.5940 dated 18th June, 1993 and their cases are required to be considered along with those named, as has been called for vide letter no.10/2001 dated 9th October, 2001 or not and determine the issue within six months.” 3. Case of the appellants and others were then considered by the respondents and it was rejected on the ground that services of the petitioners have already been terminated long before. This is how the appellants are before this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, appellants were terminated from service in 1994, which order was unsuccessfully challenged in the writ petition filed by appellants and others being CWJC No.2202 of 1995. Once the appellants were not continuing 3.in service, their case was entirely distinguishable from those who were in service. Therefore, they could not derive any benefit of the aforesaid Resolution No. 5940 dated 18th June, 1993. We, for our satisfaction, have gone through order dated 10th July, 2003 passed by Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, which reflects that the case of appellants and others were considered in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Laghu Sichai Karmchari Sangh and others (supra) and Resolution no.5940 dated 18th June, 1993 and ultimately case of the appellants and others were rejected on the ground that it is not covered either by Supreme Court judgment in Laghu Sichai Karmchari Sangh and others (supra) or under Resolution no. 5940. It would be apt to reproduce the observation made by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, which reads thus:- “In view of the above it is held that the case of the petitioners is not covered either by the Supreme Court decision in SLP (Civil) No. 18164/99 or the policy resolution no.5940 dated 18.06.93 & hence then names cannot be considered along with the names of those who presently continue to be engaged on daily wages. In so far as the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Patna dated 06.07.98 in Civil Review Petition no.272 of 1997 is concerned the same directs that the cases of the petitioners may be considered afresh for regularization “if the same is the part of government policy and if there are vacancies which the government feel inclined to fill up by regularizing the services of petitioners.” It is submitted the there is no governmental policy for regularization of daily wagers who services have previously been terminated and hence the question of regularization the services of the petitioners does not arise.” 6. What appears to the Court is that learned writ Court has considered the facts in detail while rejecting the plea of the appellants. We also find no merit in the same. We are therefore, not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned 4.order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 8. Ordered accordingly.