Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 680 (JHR)

Somesh Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court on the threat of termination of their services seeking quashing of the letter no. 5229 dated 27.10.2006 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-21) where under the respondent no.4, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Environment and Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand been directed to terminate the services of the identified Class-III employees within 15 days and submit report. 3. Petitioners, except petitioner no. 9 had earlier approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 5610 of 2005 on the issuance of show cause notice, which was however disposed of by order dated 2.2.2006 giving liberty to the respondents to take a decision in accordance with law within stipulated period without interfering with the show cause notice. 4. Petitioners, while seeking quashing of the impugned order seek reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.S. No. 4950 of 2005 in the case of Ramran Bijay Singh & others v. State of Jharkhand & others dated 18.2.2013 contending that acting upon the memo no. 2106 dated 19.7.2004, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand and also Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, petitioners of the said case were issued show cause notice dated 29.7.2005 asking them to explain as to why their services be not terminated. It is submitted that similar show cause notice been issued in the case of the present petitioners also though the names of these persons were not reflected in memo no.2106 dated 19.7.2004, which is Annexure-9 to the present writ application. These petitioners have also been asked to explain as to why their services be not terminated in similar manner. Petitioners claim parity with the petitioners of W.P.S. No. 4950 of 2005 as they contend that they have also been appointed by the Conservator of Forest in the respective year 1985 after the selection process and their services have also been confirmed like those petitioner in W.P.S. No. 4950 of 2005. These petitioners also claim to have been granted the benefit of time bound promotion and A.C.P during their service career and pursuant to the interim order passed in this case on 12.12.2006 have continued in service till date. 5. These petitioners also claim to have been granted the benefit of time bound promotion and A.C.P during their service career and pursuant to the interim order passed in this case on 12.12.2006 have continued in service till date. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that taking note of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court In C.W.J.C. No. 8983 of 2004 wherein the same show cause notice dated 19.7.2004 bearing memo no.2106 of the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand by the affected persons, was quashed, this Court was pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 29.7.2005 in the case of Ramran Bijay Singh & others (supra) and hold that they are entitled to similar relief. These petitioners therefore are entitled to continue in service, as they have remained for almost 31 years by now. 6. Averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents show that these petitioners were selected after appearing before the Selection Committee meeting held on 5.8.1985 from amongst 22 typists working in different offices on daily wage. Prior to that, Conservator of Forest, Departmental Working Circle, Hazaribag had initiated the process of appointment for advertising 14 posts of Assistant Clerk and 2 posts of Routine Clerk by requesting the District Employment Officer, Hazaribag through letter no. 1249 dated 31.8.2984. Pursuant thereto, names of 1040 candidates of different classes were sent to the Office of Conservator of Forest, vide memo dated 21.10.1986 by the Assistant Director, Labour and Employment Department. However, by the communication dated 17.11.1986, Assistant Director was informed by the Conservator of Forest that due to unavoidable circumstances, appointment of Assistant Clerk could not be undertaken. In between Officers working under the Hazaribag Circle i.e. State Trading Division were asked to send the list of requirement of clerks and working persons on daily wages till 20.7.1985. In this exercise, out of 22 typists, who were called for, 14 were selected, which included the petitioners also. In the list furnished at para 13, the names of the Appointing Officer is shown as Conservator of Forest, Departmental Working Circle and dates of appointment of each of the petitioners and others of the year 1985 are also reflected. There appear to be correspondence between the Conservator of Forest, Departmental Working Circle, Hazaribag and Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag dated 30.1.1986 on the question of payment of salary of selected persons. Further letter no. There appear to be correspondence between the Conservator of Forest, Departmental Working Circle, Hazaribag and Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag dated 30.1.1986 on the question of payment of salary of selected persons. Further letter no. 145 dated 14.1.1986 was also written to the District Accounts Officer, Hazaribag by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribag Circle describing the method of selection procedure, based on Personnel Department letter no.1640 dated 3.12.1980 mentioning that department typist working on daily wage were appointed by the Selection Committee process dated 5.8.1985. The selection was done on the basis of interview and departmental work experience. The District Accounts Officer was required to release the salary of the newly appointed staffs. These appointment are said to have been inquired through a Committee constituted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which submitted its report on 9.11.2005. The findings of the inquiry as reflected in the counter affidavit show that the appointment of these persons were done contrary to the sanctioned vacant post without following the rules relating to reservation roster. Though the exercise was initiated through calling of names from District Employment Office, Hazaribag but candidates working in different departmental offices on daily wage and at Hazaribag circle were only called for selection. Based on these findings, petitioners were asked to submit show cause on 5.9.2005 and after submission of their show cause report was submitted by Regional Chief Conservator of Forest on 9.11.2005(Annexure-G to the counter affidavit), which forms the basis for issuance of the impugned order dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure-21). 7. These relevant facts culled from the counter affidavit of the respondents are also reflected in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee presided over by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand held on 19.6.2006 in respect of the appointment of these petitioners and on consideration of their reply. The minutes dated 19.6.2006 at Annexure-20 to the writ petition also contained the list of the appointed persons, name of the appointing authority i.e. Conservator of Forest, Hazaribag with their individual date of appointment in the year 1985. It also appears from the communication of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest dated 9.11.2005 bearing memo no. 3007 at Annexure-G to the counter affidavit that the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag through letter no. 2561 dated 10.11.2003 had accorded roster clearance to the cadre of the aforesaid persons which included the present petitioners. 8. It also appears from the communication of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest dated 9.11.2005 bearing memo no. 3007 at Annexure-G to the counter affidavit that the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag through letter no. 2561 dated 10.11.2003 had accorded roster clearance to the cadre of the aforesaid persons which included the present petitioners. 8. In the chronology of the facts, which have unfolded herein above, it is apparent that appointment of these petitioners sometime in the year 1985 by the Conservator of Forest after following the selection exercise and interview test and after confirmation of their services as per the dates indicated in para 19 of the writ petition, un-rebutted by the respondents in para 35 of the counter affidavit, have been questioned in the exercise initiated in the year 2005 through the show cause notice dated 5.9.2005. Petitioners are definitely not shown in the communication dated 19.7.2004 issued by the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar, which alleged irregularities in appointment of certain persons in the office of State Trading Division under the Conservator of Forest, some of which were petitioners in W.P.S. No. 4950 of 2005. 9. As is apparent, from the perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of Ramran Bijay Singh & others (supra), details of each of the said petitioner show that they were also engaged initially on daily wage basis in the year 1983 and were subsequently appointed as Assistant Clerk sometime in 1985 and also confirmed in service by the Conservator of Forest, State Trading Circle and continued thereafter till issuance of the notice dated 29.7.2005 asking them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated. This Court after taking note of the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8983 of 2004 dated 1.8.2005 found that petitioners therein were also entitled to similar relief and had been confirmed from the respective dates by the order of the Conservator of Forest, passed much before the respective years. In the facts of present case also, it is evident from the record referred to herein above that these petitioners working on daily wage basis were appointed after the selection test and interview by the Selection Committee in 1985 and confirmed in service on different dates by letter dated 29.4.1988 in respect of petitioner no.1, 23.3.1996 in respect of petitioner nos. 2,3 and 5, 27.7.1989 in respect of petitioner no.4, 10.7.1998 in respect of petitioner no.6, 11.6.1997 in respect of petitioner no.7, 14.10.1994 in respect of petitioner no.8 and 13.11.2003 in respect of petitioner no.9. From perusal of Annexure-G to the counter affidavit it is apparent that roster clearance had also been granted by the office of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division to the cadre of these petitioners. These petitioners also have been granted benefits of time bound promotion and A.C.P, which are not refuted by the respondents. 10. Upon consideration of the facts discussed herein above, it appears that though the names of the present petitioners did not find place in the notice dated 19.7.2004 issued by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar but the appointment of these petitioners were also questioned in similar manner like that of Ramran Bijay Singh & others(Supra). These petitioners on other aspects also appear to be similarly situated in the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8983 of 2004 and W.P.S. No. 4950 of 2005. Petitioners herein have continued in service by virtue of the interim order passed earlier in the writ application and have not been removed from service by now, almost 31 years from the date of their appointment. These petitioners therefore are entitled to similar relief like the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8983 of 2004 and W.P.S. No. 4950 of 2005. The impugned communication contained in letter no. 5229 dated 27.10.2006 is therefore liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated herein above. Petition allowed.