Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1677 (JHR)

Phoolzadi Khatoon v. Union of India

2017-09-15

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Jr. Assistant Gr. II in Giridih office of Indian Statistical Institute from the date when similarly situated person, namely, Smt. Krishna Bhattacharya has been regularized in Giridih office and further to dispose of the representation dated 8th September. 2009 of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nitu Sinha. learned C.G.C for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner after going through the selection process was appointed on the post of Temporary Investigator vide office order dated 30.12.1985 for a period of three months. Thereafter, again after going through the same selection process, the respondents issued appointment letter vide office order dated 28.07.1986 for the post of Data Transcriber for a period of six months, which was from time to time extended and petitioner continued to work till 1995 without any break in service. It has further been submitted in continuation of previous service rendered by the petitioner, the respondents issued another appointment letter vide office order dated 25.05.1995 for the same post but with increased payment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that. one similarly situated employee, Krishna Bhattacharya, who has been working since 1986 had been regularized on the basis of her representation, but, the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. It has further been submitted that on the one hand. the authority is taking work from the petitioner for the last three decades but on the other hand plea has been taken by the respondents that they do not find her eligible for regularization. It has further been submitted that in the case of said Krishna Bhattacharya weightage has been given to her long rendered services and interview but in the case of the petitioner more weightage has been. given to technical test/typing test and further to frustrate the claim of the petitioner, a manufactured and artificial break in service has been done in the year 2001. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with the terms and conditions that she will not have any claim for regular absorption in Indian Statistical Institute. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with the terms and conditions that she will not have any claim for regular absorption in Indian Statistical Institute. It has further been submitted that said Krishna Bhattacharya was offered an appointment as an uncategorized worker purely on temporary basis for a period of one year on the basis of her application dated 12.02.1997 by the Director by virtue of power conferred on him vide Clause 19.3 of the Standing Service Order of the Institute and subsequently, the matter of regularization of her services was duly considered by the Committee duly constituted by the Authority and only on the basis of recommendation of such Committee, she was posted in category of Junior Assistant Grade IV. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the case of the petitioner was also considered by the Committee, which after examining the suitability of the petitioner found that since the petitioner could not qualify for typing test, which was an essential qualification prescribed in the category manual for the said post, is not eligible for regularization. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner along with one Krishna Bhattacharya was appointed on temporary basis in the 1986 in the said Institute and their services were extended from time to time without any break in service. By passage of time, on the basis of representation made by that Krishna Bhattacharya, she was given permanent status and has been regularized by the Director by virtue of power conferred on him vide Clause 19.3 of the Standing Service Order of the Institute initially for a period of one year and later on her services were regularized. However, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner rendered her services in the Institute to the utmost satisfaction and only because she was given time to time extension that too for three decades. 8. In such view of the matter, the respondents, in particular, respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Jr. Assistant Gr. 8. In such view of the matter, the respondents, in particular, respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Jr. Assistant Gr. II in Giridih office of Indian Statistical Institute, as stated, at par with the similarly situated person, namely, Smt. Krishna Bhattacharya and take an appropriate decision in the matter taking into consideration the averments made in the writ application and the observations made by this Court and taking into account the relevant rules/regulations/circulars etc within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.