Lalman Prasad Mehta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 183 Jhar

                                            1                        W.P.(S) No. 4234 of 2018




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

W.P.(S) No. 4234 of 2018

----

1.Lalman Prasad Mehta, alia Lalmani Mehta, aged 56 years, son of late Pragya Mehta, resident of village Pabra, PS-Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh

2.Ram Kumar Dev, aged 48 years, son of Sri Vakil Ram Kushwaha, resident of village Kanchanpur, PO Lapung, PS Katkamsandi, District Hazaribagh

3.Ishwar Mahto, aged 59 years, son of late Bihari Mahto, resident of Mahouri, PO Bagodar, PS Bagodar, District Giridih ... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, F.F.P Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District Ranchi

2.The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, F.F.P Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District Ranchi

3.The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, F.F.P Building, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District Ranchi

4.The Superintending Engineer, Works Circle, Rural Works Department, Hazaribagh, PO, PS and District Hazaribagh

5.The Executive Engineer, Works Division, Rural Works Department, Hazaribagh, PO, PS and District Hazaribagh ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate

----

11/13.01.2021 Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of 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.

3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction

upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of

Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinatha Aniyamit Roop Se Niyukta Awam Karyarat

Karmion Ki Sewa Niyamatikaran Niyamawali, 2015.

4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the petitioners were working on daily wage basis in Rural

Engineering Organization, Works Division, Hazaribagh w.e.f. 1981, 1987

and 1988 on the post of Choukidar, Roller Driver and Chainman

respectively and had rendered services till the year 1999. He submits that

the petitioners worked for more than ten years and in view of the

'Uma Devi' case and 'Narendra Kumar Tiwari ' case, the case of the

petitioners is required to be considered by the respondent State and for

that the petitioners have made a representation as contained in

Annexure-9 to the writ petition. He submits that in view of the above, the

respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner

for regularization.

5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent State has got no objection if the writ petition is

disposed of with a direction for consideration of the representation of the

petitioner.

6. In view of the above facts, the writ petition is being

disposed of directing the petitioners to file fresh representation along

with all the credentials including the judgment on which the petitioners

are relying before the respondent no.1 within three weeks.

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

the respondent no.1 shall take a decision in accordance with the rules,

regulations and guidelines and considering the two judgments relied by

the petitioners and Niyamawali, 2015 and will pass appropriate reasoned

order within eight weeks thereafter.

8. With the above observation and direction, the instant writ

petition stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,