Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 178 (JHR)

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-25

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER : Supplementary counter-affidavit dated 24.01.2017 is taken on record. A copy of the affidavit has been served to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Prayer in the writ petition is for quashing a part of letter dated 15.02.2016 whereby a decision has been taken for payment to the Computer Operators through Agency. Another prayer is for a direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of salary. 3. Heard. 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were appointed by an authority of the government, however, now a decision has been taken for payment to the Computer Operators through an Agency which would mean that the petitioners' service would be transferred to an Agency. It is submitted that in the counter-affidavit the respondents have admitted that the petitioners were appointed by the State authority. 5. Per contra, Ms. Sunita Kumari, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners are neither employees of the State Government nor of National Informatics Centre Service of India (NICSI) and therefore, they cannot object to the policy decision of the Government. 6. In the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 24.01.2017 the respondents have pleaded as under : 8. “That in compliance of the above order the respondent no. 5 states and submits that an outside agency by the name and style of NICSI (National Informatics Centre Service of India), duly approved by the Government of India, is offloaded the work relating to computer operation in various State Government offices and a policy decision has been taken by the Government to supervise the work of computer operators by the said outsourcing agency NICSI and make payment of their wages. Presently some of the computer operators (excluding writ petitioners) are working under NISCI in the office of District Transport Office Jamshedpur. 9. That the writ petitioners are neither employee of the State Government nor the employee of NICSI (National Informatics Centre Service of India) and they (writ petitioners) are working on adhoc basis on a daily wage basis. 10. That it is further submitted that the writ petitioners have been paid their wages/salary up to 30.11.2015 and for their outstanding wages/salary, a letter has been written by District Transport Officer, East Singbhbum, Jamshedpur to the Deputy Secretary Transport Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide letter no. 1324 dated 23.12.2016. 10. That it is further submitted that the writ petitioners have been paid their wages/salary up to 30.11.2015 and for their outstanding wages/salary, a letter has been written by District Transport Officer, East Singbhbum, Jamshedpur to the Deputy Secretary Transport Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide letter no. 1324 dated 23.12.2016. The payment of said wages/salary has been made under the subhead “COMMERCIAL SERVICES” which comes under head “ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES” wherein funds are allotted from time to time by Transport Department on the basis of annual budget. It is pertinent to be mentioned that various miscellaneous expenses including wages/salary of nonState Government employees (working on an adhoc basis) are paid under the head “ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES” and subhead “COMMERCIAL SERVICES”. 11. That it is reiterated that the writ petitioners are never employed by the State Government and they started working on adhoc basis on a daily wage rate.” 7. In so far as, payment of salary up to 30.11.2015 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is a fact that the petitioners have subsequently been paid salary up to 30.11.2015. The respondents have pleaded that for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners letter dated 23.12.2016 has been written by the District Transport Officer, East Singbhum for allocation of fund. Accordingly, it is ordered that necessary fund shall be made available for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners, within four weeks. 8. The petitioners who claim that they were appointed on 08.12.2009 on the post of Data EntrycumComputer Operator in the office of District Transport Officer (DTO), are still continuing on the said post. It is an admitted position that they have been engaged as daily wagers. In a meeting held on 06.02.2016 a decision has been taken for payment of wages to the Computer Operators through Agency. The apprehension of the petitioners is that their services would be transferred to an Agency. If that is so, in my opinion, it would not cause any prejudice to the petitioners in as much as, they would be deemed to have been working under the principal employer which is the State and while so, no exception can be taken to the decision taken in the meeting held on 06.02.2016. Needless to clarify that the petitioners would have rights in law which are available to the daily wagers. 9. The writ petition stands partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Needless to clarify that the petitioners would have rights in law which are available to the daily wagers. 9. The writ petition stands partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Petition partly allowed.