Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2567 (JHR)

Ritu Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-27

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2018
ORDER : This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from March, 2004 to December, 2005, further to pay salary from January, 2006, as the department has illegally ousted them from the office, without any notice or show cause and also pay the statutory interest and penal interest thereon for the delayed payment. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief, as pleaded in the writ petition, is that the petitioners were working as Volunteer Workers in the office since 1994 and similarly situated other workers moved before the Hon'ble Patna High Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 4941 of 1995 and order was passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, directing for absorption of the Volunteer Workers in the office of respondent No. 4 and in pursuance thereto, the respondent No. 4 sent a letter to respondent No.3, vide Memo No. 394 dated 31.12.2001 and requested therein that the In-charge, Medical Officer, Sadar, Dumka has recommended for absorption of some volunteer workers. The case of the petitioners is that they have been absorbed in the year 2002 by the respondent No.3, vide office order No. 92 dated 10.2.2002, in pursuance to the direction passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4941 of 1995 and in view of the recommendations made by the respondent No.4. Further case of the petitioners is that they have been absorbed by order dated 10.2.2002. but thereafter they have not been paid their salary, since the instant writ petition. 3. The respondent-State has filed counter-affidavit [in W.P. (S) No. 6243 of 2015], wherein inter alia stand has been taken that the petitioners have never been engaged to work within the Health Department by the respondent-authority and they have never performed any duty under the respondent-authority. It is further stated that earlier several other persons have filed W.P. (S) No. 2880 of 2014, W.P. (S) No. 2885 of 2014 and W.P. (S) No. 2887 of 2014, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and in the light of the judgment passed in those writ petitions, the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargana, Dumka vide letter Nos. 231, 232, 233 and 234, all dated 20.6.2015, has passed order and directed the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka to lodge First Information Report against the culprits and as per direction, the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Dumka has lodged First Information Report against those persons which came to be registered as Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 43 of 2016. It is the further stand of the State-respondent that the grievances of the petitioners in the writ petition has since been disputed in the counter- affidavit, as such, this Court may not exercise its discretionary power, conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their arguments, it has transpired that the petitioners are claiming to be the appointees, by virtue of absorption in service, vide decision, taken on 10.2.2002, which, according to the petitioners, was in the light of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4941 of 1995, although, the petitioners have filed some appointment letters provided to them (Annexure-2) i.e. by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, but it would be evident from the stand taken by the State-respondents in the counter-affidavit [filed in W.P. (S) No. 6243 of 2015] that they are seriously disputing the stand of the petitioners with respect to their absorption in their service by taking the plea that the aforesaid appointment letters are forged one. It is also evident that the First Information Report has been instituted against the culprits, who had tried to get the appointment with the help of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4941 of 1995, which has been seriously disputed by the State-respondent in the counter-affidavit. 5. It is settled position of law that the writ Court has made for summary t disposal of the grievance of citizens, as such, the summary proceeding can be adjudicated when the actual aspect is not in dispute. 6. Here in the instant case, the very question of the petitioners' appointment is seriously in dispute, as such, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. If the petitioners wish, they may raise their grievances before the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed.