Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 303 (JHR)

Basudeo Kumar Bakhla v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-05

RONGAN MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
ORDER : 1. By the Court.-Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned J.C. to S.C.I for the State. 2. The petitioners in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as they were discharging their duties as daily wagers. A further prayer has been made to forth with regularise the petitioners in service under the regular establishment in view of the circular of the respondent-Urban Development Department on the ground that several other daily wager have already been regularised. A prayer has also been made to release the entire consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment after regularising the services of the petitioners. 3. The factual aspect reveals that the petitioners had joined their services as daily wager in Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been assigned various duties which they have diligently done and they have discharged their duties against vacant and sanctioned post which were perennial in nature. In view of the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi. 2006 (3) JCR 36 (SC). the Urban Development Department which is the Nodal Department of other local bodies issued circular on 16.5.2011 directing the legal bodies to regularise the service of daily wagers under the regular establishment in accordance with law based on the guidelines by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After issuance of circular dated 16.5.2011, the petitioners demanded their regularisation. but instead they have been stopped from discharging their' duties w.e.f. 20.6.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that the persons who had joined along with the petitioners have already been regularised by virtue of office order No. 359 dated 7.2.1994, but the petitioners have been discriminated against. Representations have been submitted, but of no avail. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation as similarly situated persons have already been regularised. It has further been submitted that in terms of circular dated 16.5.2011, the petitioners were entitled for regularisation. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation as similarly situated persons have already been regularised. It has further been submitted that in terms of circular dated 16.5.2011, the petitioners were entitled for regularisation. 5. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has stated that the petitioners were merely working as daily wagers as Safai Karamchari and the post of Safai Karamchari (Scavengers) has already been abolished by the State Government vide notification dated 21.5.2010. He further submits that the Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of India has formulated Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 wherein it has been made mandatory for every municipal authority to implement scientific solid' waste management system. He further submits that the detailed report was prepared by the Corporation to implement the Rules of 2000 for providing Municipal Solid Waste Management Services including collection," transportation, processing and disposal of waste generated in the city. Learned counsel submits that M/s. A to Z Infrastructure was selected for implementing the project and an agreement was; also entered into. It has been stated that the petitioners' work was no longer required since M/s. A to Z infrastructure was carrying out the entire job of cleanliness. The Municipal Corporation had requested M/s. A to Z infrastructure to absorb the erstwhile Safai Karamchari on their roll, but the petitioner did not avail the said benefit. 6. Learned counsel for the State has stated that sanitation work was allotted to M/s. A to Z infrastructure and Ranchi Municipal Corporation has also directed M/s. A to Z infrastructure to appoint ex daily wage employees. Learned State counsel submits that, some had joined and their services conditions are similar to the service conditions in Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It has been stated that the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is the only authority to decide the claim of the petitioners. 7. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in reply has stated that if the posts of Safai Karamchari were abolished. there was no necessity of issuance of circular dated 16.5.2011. He submits that the said circular is specific with respect to the services of the Safai Karamcharis requiring regularisation by filling up the vacant posts. Learned counsel further submits that several persons who have been removed. have subsequently been taken back as daily wagers. 8. there was no necessity of issuance of circular dated 16.5.2011. He submits that the said circular is specific with respect to the services of the Safai Karamcharis requiring regularisation by filling up the vacant posts. Learned counsel further submits that several persons who have been removed. have subsequently been taken back as daily wagers. 8. Neither the affidavit of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation nor the affidavit of the State Government justifies the refusal of regularisation of the petitioners. Although it has been stated that the posts of Safai Karamcharis have been abolished vide notification dated 21.5.2010, but the circular dated 16.5.2011 speaks of regularisation of the services of the daily wagers under the regular establishment. The respondents have failed to show that the case of the petitioners are not covered by the circular dated 16.5.2011 issued by the Urban Development Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 9. In the circumstances, therefore. the case of the petitioners. deserves reconsideration by the authorities. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to prefer individual representations before the respondent No. 2 and if such representations are filed, the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration the observations made by this Court here-in-above and shall dispose of the representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. This writ application stands disposed of in terms aforesaid.