Reeta Tirkey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 596 Jhar

                                             1                [W.P.(S) No. 408 of 2020]




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                ----

W.P.(S) No. 408 of 2020

----

1.Reeta Tirkey, d/o Ramesh Oraon, aged about 36 years, r/o Meral, Lalgutwa, Ratu, Gutwa, PO-Saparom, PS-Nagri, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand

2.Sunita Kumari, w/o Binay Krishna Deo, aged about 46 years, r/o Quarter No.B/505, Sector-II, Dhurwa, PO+PS-Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

3.Md.Murtuza, s/o Mohiuddin Ali, aged about 49 years, r/o Jagarnathpur Nayasarai, village GP-Tundal (North), Block Nagri, PO Murma Nayasarai, PS Nagri, Dist.Ranchi, Jharkhand

4.Sunita Xalxo,w/o Kumar Xalxo, aged about 39 years, r/o village Purani Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand

5.Jagdish Tirkey, s/o Mahabir Tirkey, aged about 42 years, r/o Gram Singhpur, Katari Toli, Sithoria (Dhurwa), PO Sithoria, PS Nargi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

6.Rajesh Kumar Pandey, s/o Paras Nath Pandey, aged about 47 years, r/o Brajpur, PO Kathu Lahna, PS Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ..... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

2.The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

3.The Deputy Commissioner, Collectoriate office, Ranchi, Kutchery, PO, GPO and PS Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi

4.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Collectoriate Office, Ranchi, Kutchery, PO-GPO and PS-Kotwali, District Ranchi ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Abhijit Abhilash Tirkey, Advocate

----

5/08.02.2021 Heard Mr. Saket Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Abhijit Abhilash Tirkey, the learned counsel for the

respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video

Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into

account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the

parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and

with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction

upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. The

petitioners are working as Rojgar Sewak under the authority of

respondent State.

4. Pursuant to the advertisement invited for the appointment

on the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak for different districts on the

sanctioned vacant post on consolidated amount, the petitioners have

applied and following the required educational qualification and the

reservation policy, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Gram

Rojgar Sewak vide memo no.881 dated 27.07.2007. The petitioners were

directed to appear before the competent authority from 01.08.2007 to

04.08.2007 along with all the relevant original documents and certificates

for mandatory verification and necessary approval. Thereafter, the

petitioners were appointed by the competent authority in the light of

Annexure-3 series. The petitioners joined on the post and are working

continuously and have worked for more than 13 years. The petitioners'

case for regularization in spite of the representation has not been

considered. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have approached this

Court.

5. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners have already worked for more than 13 years

and in the light of the case rendered in the matter of "Narendra Kumar

Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand" [Civil Appeal No.7423-7429/2018] and the

circular for regularization of the Government of Jharkhand in terms of the

order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the case of the petitioner is

fit to be considered. He submits that the petitioners have already filed

the representation but no decision has been taken as yet.

6. Mr. Tirkey, the learned counsel for the respondent State

submits that the representation is there. The writ petition can be

disposed of for consideration of the representation.

7. In view of the above facts and considering that no decision

has been taken as yet on the representation of the petitioners, the writ

petition is being disposed of directing the petitioners to file a fresh

representation along with all the credentials including the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Narendra Kumar

Tiwary" [supra] and "Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh" [Civil

Appeal No.18510/2017], (2018) 13 SCC 432 within a period of two weeks

from today.

8. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period,

the respondent no.3 shall consider the case of the petitioners in

accordance with the rules, regulations and the guidelines and considering

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the rules made by

the Government of Jharkhand in this regard within eight weeks further

thereafter. If any decision is taken in favour of the petitioners, the benefit

of the same shall be provided to the petitioners within eight weeks

further thereafter.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/