Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1526 (JHR)

Ajit Pratap Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-25

HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA

body2017
ORDER : H.C. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board (herein after referred to as the 'Board'). 2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 22.6.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014, whereby this Court had quashed the impugned order dated 15.7.2011, passed by the Managing Director of the Board, prescribing the date of regularisation of the service of the petitioner as 26.4.2011. This court had found that the Managing Director had acted beyond his jurisdiction in prescribing the date for regularising the services of the petitioner, without there being any minutes of the Board of Directors to that effect. While quashing the said order, this Court had allowed the writ application in the following terms:- "11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, which prescribes the date for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, is hereby, quashed. It is however, made clear that respondent authorities shall be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to the date of regularisation of service of the petitioner by a reasoned order, taking into account his past continuous service. If no such decision is taken within a reasonable period of maximum six months from the date of communication of the order, it shall be deemed that the service of the petitioner has been regularised with effect from the date of continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner, i.e., from 20.8.1990 (Annexure-3), with all consequential benefits." (Emphasis supplied) 3. In this contempt petition, the petitioner has also brought on record, the order passed by the respondents, as contained in Memo No. 2/Go dated 21.12.2016, which is purported to have been passed in compliance of the order dated 22.6.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014. It is stated in the said order that Board of Directors, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, had decided to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 26.4.2011. This is the same date, which was mentioned in the earlier order, which was quashed by this Court. 4. It is stated in the said order that Board of Directors, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, had decided to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 26.4.2011. This is the same date, which was mentioned in the earlier order, which was quashed by this Court. 4. A show cause was filed on behalf of the respondent Board, in which also, the aforesaid order, as also the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors were brought on record and it is stated in the said show cause that the order passed by this Court has been complied with. 5. When the matter was taken up on 5.7.2017, this Court was of the view that the aforesaid order, as contained in Annexure-15 to the contempt petition, was not in compliance of the order passed by this Court, rather this was only a reiteration of the earlier order, passed by the Managing Director, of the Board, whereby, the service of the petitioner was regularised with effect from 26.4.2011. Though this Court had specifically directed that the service of the petitioner be regularised, taking into account the past continuous service of the petitioner, but there was no consideration about the past service of the petitioner in the said order. Accordingly, this Court was not satisfied about the compliance of this Court's order. 6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent Board prayed for further time for filing further show cause, and on his request, the case was adjourned for two weeks. Again when the matter was taken up on 21.7.2017, at the request of learned counsel for the respondent Board, the matter was further adjourned for four weeks. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel again prayed for adjournment for eight weeks for filing the supplementary show cause. The prayer, made by the learned counsel, now cannot be acceded to, and hence rejected, for the reasons discussed herein below. 7. In the order dated 22.6.2016, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014, this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent Board on 18.6.1989, on daily wages on temporary basis, which was extended from time to time. 7. In the order dated 22.6.2016, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014, this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the respondent Board on 18.6.1989, on daily wages on temporary basis, which was extended from time to time. Subsequently, by order dated 20.8.1990, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, the services of the petitioner were extended until further orders by the respondent Board, on the basis of which, the petitioner was in continuous service and his service was regularised by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 26.4.2011. No date of regularisation of service was mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. This Court was of the view that since the petitioner had continuously worked since 20.8.1990, there was no reason as to why the benefits of continuous service to the petitioner could not be granted at least with effect from the said date. The order prescribing the date of regularisation of service of the petitioner with effect from 26.4.2011 was passed by the Managing Director of the Board on 15.7.2011, even though there was no minute of the Board of Directors to that effect. In that view of the matter, this Court while quashing the order dated 15.7.2011, passed by the Managing Director of the Board, directed the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to the date of regularisation of the service of the petitioner by a reasoned order, taking into account the past continuous service of the petitioner. It was also stated in the said order that if no decision was taken by the respondent authorities within a reasonable period of six months from the date of the order, it shall be deemed that the services of the petitioner had been regularised with effect from the date of continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner, i.e., from 20.8.1990. 8. 8. The order dated 21.12.2016, which has been brought on record, as Annexure-15 to this contempt petition, clearly shows that the past services of the petitioner have not been taken into account at all, and the Board of Directors has only reiterated the earlier order passed by the Managing Director, in a mechanical manner, and in hot haste, as that was the last date on which the Board of Directors could pass any order, in order to escape from the deeming effect of the order dated 22.6.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014. 9. I have gone through the order, as contained in Annexure-15 to the contempt petition along with the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors, brought on record in the show cause, filed by the respondent Board, with the help of the learned counsel for the respondent Board. Neither from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors, nor from the order, as contained in Annexure-15 to contempt application, learned counsel could point out anything to show that the past continuous service of the petitioner was taken into account by the Board of Directors, while taking the decision afresh, reiterating the date of regularisation of the service of petitioner w.e.f., 26.4.2011. As such, there is no compliance of the order dated 22.6.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014 at all, and the order dated 21.12.2016, brought on record, as Annexure-15 to this contempt petition, is absolutely non-est in the eyes of law. 10. In that view of the matter, since the order dated 21.12.2016, as contained in Annexure-15 to this contempt petition, is non-est in the eyes of law, now it has to be deemed that no order has been passed by the respondent authorities in compliance of the order dated 22.6.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2014, which clearly mandated that if no order is passed within a reasonable period of maximum six months, it shall be deemed that the service of the petitioner has been regularised with effect from the date of continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner, i.e., from 20.8.1990 (Annexure-3), with all consequential benefits. This order has already attained its finality, as the respondent Board has admittedly not challenged this order, either by filing L.P.A in this Court, or by challenging the order in the Apex Court. As such, this Court is not in a position to dilute this order by giving further time to learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board for filing further show cause in the matter. 11. It is made clear that now the legal position is that the service of the petitioner is deemed to have been regularised with effect from the date of continuous and uninterrupted service of the petitioner, i.e., from 20.8.1990, with all consequential benefits. As such there is no necessity of proceeding with this contempt petition any further. 12. This contempt petition, is accordingly, disposed of making the position in law, clear as above. Petition disposed of.