Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 388 (JHR)

Usha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2025-02-12

ANANDA SEN

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. I.A. No.10606 of 2018 In this interlocutory application, petitioner has prayed for amendment of the petition. In the original writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to take her back in service, but in this I.A. the petitioner has prayed to regularize her service, since, she was working for more than 15 years as lady warden in Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. It has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit, that the respondents have sent a letter to I.G. Prison for regularizing the service of several other persons. Thus, she also prays for regularization. 2. Considering the submission of the petitioner and fact that the amendment will not change the nature of the case rather will minimize the multiplicity of proceeding, I am inclined to allow this I.A. and the prayer for regularization is also to be treated as the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition. W.P.(S) No. 3944 of 2017 3. This is a very good example of exploitation by the State. The facts are admitted in this case. The petitioner was engaged on daily wages to work as warden in Central Jail, Ghaghidih, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. Petitioner admittedly worked from 2001 till May, 2016. She fall ill and had given an application for leave and went on leave on 22.05.2016. After a treatment, she came back and wanted to join, but on 28.10.2016 when she came to join, the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 as contained in Memo No.3717 was issued, whereby the respondents concluded that since there are sufficient numbers of warden in the Jail it will not be possible for them to take work from her, but in future, if need arises, she can be engaged. She was not allowed to work, but thereafter, the wardens, who were working on daily wage basis were regularized by the State, which has been admitted by the State in their counter affidavit. 4. This Court on 27.01.2023 has posed five questions to the respondents-State, which has been answered by the State in their counter affidavit. They admit that after applying for leave the petitioner went for treatment, which fact is also apparent and evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Though the respondents have stated that permission for leave was not granted but there is no such document to suggest that the same was refused. They admit that after applying for leave the petitioner went for treatment, which fact is also apparent and evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Though the respondents have stated that permission for leave was not granted but there is no such document to suggest that the same was refused. They also admit that the petitioner worked as daily wager from 2001 to 2016. They also admit that lady wardens, who were junior to the petitioner were appointed on daily wages have been regularized. Further they admit that no notice was issued to the petitioner before disengaging her. 5. When the petitioner went on leave for a treatment as she was unwell, the respondents before disengaging her should have issued proper show-cause notice. The show-cause notice was necessary keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner was working since 2001 to May 2016. For long fifteen years, she worked and thereafter had gone for treatment and in the meantime, when she was on leave, the respondents disengaged her. This method of disengagement is not proper and opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner, as to why they are disengaging the petitioner. There is a violation of principle of natural justice in this case. 6. Thus, I hold the disengagement of the petitioner is illegal. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated immediately. 7. The respondents themselves have admitted that they have regularized wardens, who are junior to the petitioner and are working as a daily wager. In view of the admission of the State, I direct the State to regularize the service of the petitioner after reinstating her. The entire process should be concluded within eight weeks from the receipt a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.