Daya Shankar Prasad Karn vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3755 Jhar

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cont. Case (C). No. 202 of 2019
                                        ----------

Daya Shankar Prasad Karn ......... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Dukha Mandal, Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs), Work Circle, Dumka ......... Opp. Parties.

           CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
                                (Through: Video Conferencing)
           For the Petitioner         :     Mr. Shadab Bin Haque Advocate
           For the State              :     Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG
                                       -----------
11/01.10.2021     Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned AAG submits that in view of

order and direction of this Court, Manohar Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Rural Development (Rural Works Affairs, Works Circle, Dumka) is present before this Court through video conferencing.

From perusal of the letter dated 07.06.2016, issued by the Superintending Engineer itself, it is apparent that petitioner is working continuously since 14.05.1998 till date. The facts have not been disputed by the Superintending Engineer. A Class-IV employee working for last more than 25 years, till date, cannot be said to be working on unsanctioned post. If the post was not sanctioned and vacant, how the respondents have allowed them to continue from the year 1998 till date and making payments for the same. If the appointment was illegal, why his services have not been terminated till date? If the appointment is irregular, the State has to take steps for regularization in accordance with law.

The Judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423 - 7429 of 2018 are authority on the point. The State cannot shut its eyes and pass order showing ignorance to the settled proposition of law.

The Superintending Engineer present before this Court asmits that he is unaware of the legal proposition and the facts of the case since he has been posted in Dumka holding the said post since last two months.

Learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submits that needful will be done in accordance with law. Superintending Engineer undertakes to revisit the order taking into consideration the celebrated Judgment, as mentioned hereinabove.

As prayed, put up this case on 03.12.2021. The State will revisit the order and shall consider the matter sympathetically considering the long period of service by the petitioner since 1998.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/-