Jharkhand High Court
Prem Nath Ojha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4591 of 2010
Prem Nath Ojha ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag, P.O. + P.S.
and District: Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
3. Principal, Indira Gandhi BalikaVidyalaya, Hazaribag,
P.O. + P.S. + District:-Hazaribag ..... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, AC to SC-III
-----
06/ 03.08.2021 Heard through V.C.
2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner confines
his prayer for a direction upon the respondent Authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of
notification issued by the State of Jharkhand.
3. Mr. Deepak Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly submits that the petitioner is confining his prayer only for
regularization in the light of the fact that the Personnel
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, State of
Jharkhand has issued a notification dated 13.02.2015; whereby
certain guidelines has been enshrined; as such, his case may be
disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the
case of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines of the
notification.
Mr. Sinha further relied upon the judgment which has
been passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.4019 of 2010 and
analogous cases wherein this Court after considering the similar
matter has held in para 15 as under:
"15. In view of the submissions made by the
respective parties and without delving into the merit
of the matter, all the writ petitions are disposed of
with direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioners in the light of the Notification
No.1348 dated 13.02.2015 published by the
Personnel and Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand
for regularization of their services taking into
account the uninterrupted services rendered by them
within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order."
4. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel
fairly submits that this case should also be considered in the light
of the respondent's notification as well as judgment passed by this
Court.
5. Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the State fairly
submits that the petitioner may be directed to file fresh
representation before the respondent No.2 along with all
supporting documents at the earliest; and if any representation is
filed, the matter will be verified and decision will be taken in
accordance with law.
6. In view of the limited submission of learned counsel for
the parties the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by
directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising his
grievance before the respondent No.2 within a period of 10 weeks
from today.
If any such representation is filed before the respondent
No.2; same shall be decided in accordance with law, rules, and the
notifications & judgment referred to hereinabove.
7. It goes without saying that since the matter is very old
as such the respondent No.2 shall pass a reasoned and speaking
order within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of such
representation.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ
application stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Pramanik/
