Jharkhand High Court
Himanshu Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.6408 of 2019
------
Himanshu Kumar Thakur, aged about 43 years, son of Ajay Kumar Thakur,
resident of Village, Malani, P.O. Malani, P.S. Godda, District Godda,
Jharkhand, presently posted as Gram Rojgar Sevak under Godda Block,
District Godda, Jharkhand .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary of Gramin Vikas, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
4. The Deputy Collector, Godda, P.O. + P.S. Godda, District Godda,
Jharkhand
5. The District Establishment Up-Samaharta, Godda, P.O. + P.S. Godda,
District Godda, Jharkhand
6. The Block Development Officer, Godda, P.O. + P.S. Godda, District Godda,
Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati. S.C. III
------
06/02.03.2021 Heard Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the respondents-State.
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.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the
service.
The petitioner was selected and got joining letter from office of Zila
Gramin Vikas Kendra, Godda. The said letter was issued by the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Programming Coordinator by letter dated
08.09.2009. Further letter was issued by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Programming Coordinator by letter dated 08.09.2009 whereby the petitioner
has been allotted Poraiyahat Block within Godda District for discharging his
duty as Gram Rojgar Sevak.
Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is working since the date of appointment and the Block
Development Officer has already recommended the case of the petitioner
along with others by letter dated 09.03.2019 for considering the
regularization of the service of the petitioner. He submits that the case of
the petitioner is fully covered in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238,
Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi & Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & Others Versus M.L. Kesari
& Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247.
Per contra, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the
respondents-State submits that the petitioner was working with the scheme
and he was appointed under the MNREGA on contract basis and in view of
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbachan Lal Versus
Regional Engineering College, Kurushetra & Others reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 102., the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered.
Considering the fact that recommendation of Block Development
Commissioner is already there contained in Annexure 5 and representation
of the petitioner contained in Annexure 6, at the first instance it is required
to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is
directed to file fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner within
a period of three weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid
period, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass reasoned order within a period
of eight weeks further thereafter.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
