Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 748 (JHR)

Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-06-13

S.N.PATHAK

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of regularization claiming therein that though the petitioner has joined on 18.03.1980 against sanctioned and vacant post but his services were regularized w.e.f. 24.04.1990. Further prayer has been made for granting merger scale and for quashing the order by which the pay-scale has been reduced and order of recovery has been passed. 3. The petitioner has demonstrated before this Court that in view of resolution of the Governing Body of the said college, the petitioner was appointed on sanctioned and vacant post on 18.03.1980 but contrary to that, his services were regularized w.e.f. 24.04.1990. 4. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-University very fairly submits that there is no quarrel to the fact that Governing Body has resolved for sanctioning the said post on which the petitioner was working but as per the Rules the same has to be approved by the State Government on recommendation of the University. There is no such approval neither any recommendation of the University, rather, it has been clearly mentioned that the post was unsanctioned and as such, the regularization was made w.e.f. 24.04.1990, on the date of sanctioning of said post. 5. It appears that objection regarding regularization has been raised earlier after 12 years. Nothing has been brought on record that earlier also at the time of regularization petitioner made any objection. This writ petition has been filed in the year 2018. The petitioner claims that he was not informed regarding order of regularization. This plea of the petitioner is not acceptable to this Court. There cannot be any order of regularization without any information to the employee concerned. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the post was sanctioned only in the year 1990 and thereafter, the order of regularization was passed. This Court, at this stage, after lapse of 18 years cannot interfere in shifting of the date of regularization when nothing has been brought on record to show that the post was sanctioned and vacant at the time of appointment of petitioner. Merely resolution of the governing body cannot be a basis for shifting the date of regularization. 6. However, regarding merger of scale, it appears that petitioner was granted the scale as per rules on 01.04.1981 and thereafter the order of recovery was passed, which was stayed by this Court. Merely resolution of the governing body cannot be a basis for shifting the date of regularization. 6. However, regarding merger of scale, it appears that petitioner was granted the scale as per rules on 01.04.1981 and thereafter the order of recovery was passed, which was stayed by this Court. The services of the petitioner was regularized on 24.04.1990. Only on the ground that services were regularized from 24.04.1990, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the said merger scale, the order of recovery has been passed. The petitioner was getting that merger scale prior to his regularization. This Court is fully satisfied that under no authority of law the order of recovery could be passed that too without following the cardinal principle of natural justice. 7. Under such circumstances, the order dated 03.08.2019, which was stayed earlier by this Court is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Let it be made clear that the Court has not entertained prayer for rectification of the date of regularization and the writ petition is allowed to the extent that there shall not be any recovery from the petitioner. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. I.A. No. 7867 of 2019 stands closed.