Jharkhand High Court
Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha vs Mr. Awanish Shekhar on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5792 of 2011
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, A.C. to A.A.G-I
---------
13/Dated: 23rd November, 2021
Order dated 16.09.2021 reads as under.
"12/Dated: 16th September, 2021
Heard through V.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though pursuant to
the order of this Court filed by them in the earlier writ application the
petitioners have been regularized, but not in the regular establishment
rather in work charged itself whereas in the earlier writ application
there was reference of the judgment passed in the case of Ram Prasad
Singh & Anr. VS State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) JCR 9
(Jhr) (FB), wherein the Hon'ble Full Bench as held as under:-
"The State of Bihar from its different Works Department
regularized the services of work-charged employees by taking
over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment.
Generally their cases were used to be considered on completion
of ten years of services in the work-charged establishment.
However, in Irrigation Department and Road Construction
Departments, services of the work-charged employees, who had
completed five years of continuous services on sanctioned posts,
were taken over in the permanent (regular) establishments,
subject to fitness. This discrepancy having been noticed, the
State of Bihar vide its Memo No. PC 2-29-02/84-3058-B, dated
22nd October, 1984 decided that services of all the work-charged
employees, who have completed five years satisfactory service on
one post, against whom there is no proceeding or criminal cases
pending, shall be taken over in the permanent (regular)
establishment. Giving reference to Finance Departments Letter
No. 8954 dated 23rd July, 1975 it was also informed that no
further post should be created in the work-charged establishment
nor the vacant posts should be filled up."
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the
petitioners have been regularized, as such there should not be any
grievance against the State. However, after perusing Annexure-3
which is regularization order, it appears that the petitioners have been
regularized in work charged employee and not in permanent regular
establishment, as such the respondent-State is directed to file specific
affidavit as to why they have not followed the judgment referred
hereinabove in regularizing the petitioners.
4. Put up this case on 20.10.2021."
5. At the request of learned counsel for the respondent-State,
put up this case on 14.12.2021, enabling him to file counter-
affidavit.
6. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be
granted to him.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
