Jharkhand High Court
Murari Prasad Tewary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1152 of 2015
---------
1. Murari Prasad Tewary.
2. Ajay Kumar Pandey.
3. Md. Ainul Haque.
4. Md. Jamshed Ansari.
5. Surya Prakash.
6. Sandeep Kumar Choudhary.
7. Jamil Mazhar.
8. Bhagirath Prasad Mahto.
9. Iqubal Ahmed.
10. Arjun Pandey.
11. Hulas Mahto.
12. Ganesh Prasad Singh.
13. Md. Majrul Haque.
14. Md. Sahabuddin Ansari.
15. Md. Shakil Akhtar.
16. Samresh Kumar Dubey.
17. Prem Chand Mahto.
18. Anand Kumar Chorasia.
19. Rajendra Prasad Mahto.
20. Pushpa Kumari.
21. Manoj Kumar Rai.
22. Samir Sarkar.
23. Kuldeep Prasad Mahto.
24. Md. Shahid Ansari.
25. Sunil Hansda.
26. Naresh Baski.
27. Suresh Ram.
28. Bhupendra Kumar.
29. Jay Prakash Yadav.
30. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari.
31. Bikash Chand Pandey.
32. Leeladhar Das.
33. Santosh Hansda.
34. Bisha Nath Mandal.
35. Dhaneshwar Marandi.
36. Baneshwar Marandi.
37. Vishnu Kumar Oraon.
38. Shashi Bhushan Kumar.
39. Ravilal Baski.
40. Lalit Kumar Das.
41. Lakhikant Soran.
42. Raj Kumar Marandi.
43. Dr. Zakir Hussain Ansari.
44. Md. Nasim Akhtar.
45. Jayant Kisku.
46. Sadhu Charan Gope.
47. Birendra Kumar Mandal. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, the Department of Rural
Development, the Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-co-district Programme
Coordinator, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The District Development Commissioner, District Rural
Development Agency, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S-Dhanbad,
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
5. The Secretary State of Jharkhand, the Staff Selection
Commission, Ranchi. ..... Respondents
with
W.P.(S) No. 989 of 2015
---------
1. Sanjiv Kumar Prasad.
2. Perjan Kumar Murmu.
3. Sudhir Rajwar.
4. Sudhir Kumar.
5. Gopal Chand Vishwakarma.
6. Lakhindra Sinha.
7. Md. Kalim Uddin Ansari.
8. Md. Attahulhaq.
9. Samsher Ansari.
10. Mosim Akhtar.
11. Sankar Mahto.
12. Khalawan Kumhar.
13. Sanjay Kumar Mahto.
14. Deepak Kumar Gupta.
15. Pancham Kumar Rajak.
16. Pramod Kumar.
17. Amlesh Kumar Dubey.
18. Ashok Kumar Mahto.
19. Dhanjee Singh.
20. Deepak Kumar Pramanik.
21. Anil Kumar.
22. Jaymase Toppno.
23. Santosh Kumar Das.
24. Prabhash Kumar.
25. Navin Kumar Pandey.
26. Gautam Kumar.
27. Ram Kisun Mahli.
28. Subal Chand Mahato.
29. Nagendra Kumar Prasad.
30. Tapan Kumar Sen.
31. Kartik Kumar Gorain.
32. Jagannath Bauri.
33. Gopi Nath Gorain.
34. Kailash Mahato.
35. Hareram Dusadh.
36. Maheshwar Nand Dhatt.
37. Shyama Pado Parmanik.
38. Sanjay Sah.
39. Subodh Mahto.
40. Dharmendra Kumar Singh.
41. Bhim Sen.
42. Rajendra Prasad Mahato.
43. Sunil Kumar Soren.
44. Jay Kumar Dutta.
45. Aman Kumar Sinha.
46. Deepak Kumar Sinha.
47. Mukesh Ram.
48. Md. Shahid Equbal.
49. Arbind Kumar Singh.
50. Binod Kumar Mishra.
51. Anil Kumar Mishra.
52. Santosh Kumar Singh.
53. Sunil Kumar Singh.
54. Shankar Yadav.
55. Dinesh Diwakar.
56. Naresh Kumar Ravi.
57. Santosh Kumar.
58. Sagar Rabidas.
59. Baldev Bauri.
60. Bishwajeet Singh Choudhary.
61. Pradeep Kumar Vishwakarma.
62. Mukund Singh Choudhary.
63. Pravin Besra.
64. Sanjay Kumar Rajak.
65. Suman Kumar.
66. Chitra Das.
67. Manju Kumar.
68. Govind Kisku.
69. Amit Kumar.
70. Ravi Shankar.
71. Rajesh Kumar Rajak.
72. Barun Kumar Pandey.
73. Sudam Pramanik.
74. Shafi Ahmed.
75. Ajit Mahto.
76. Anirudh Pandey.
77. Deepak Kumar.
78. Suraj Kumar.
79. Sanjay Kumar Singh.
80. Sarvesh Kumar Singh.
81. Raju Kumar Rajak.
82. Dr. Md. Tasleem Ansari.
83. Devendra Kumar Ravi.
84. Parmeshwar Mahto. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, the Department of Rural
Development, the Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner-co-district Programme
Coordinator, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The District Development Commissioner, District Rural
Development Agency, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S-Dhanbad,
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kaushalya, Advocate
(in both these cases)
For the Resp.-State : Mr. A.R.Kisku, A.C. to S.C.VII
(in W.P.(S) No. 1152 of 2015)
For the Resp.-Sate : Ms. Priyanka Bobby, A.C. to G.A.-I
(in W.P.(S) No. 989 of 2015)
---------
21/Dated: 21st October, 2021
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. A.R.Kisku as well as Ms. Priyanka
Bobby, learned counsel for the respondent State.
2. Since common issue is involved in both these writ
applications as such both are heard together and being
disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions for
a direction upon the respondents to absorb their services as
they are working as Gram Rojgar Sewaks, since 2007
regularly without any break under the authority of
respondent-State.
4. Brief facts of both these applications are that
pursuant to an advertisement invited for appointment on
the post of Gram Rojgar Sewak for different districts of the
State of Jharkhand on the sanctioned vacant post on
consolidated amount, the petitioners have applied and
following the required procedure and the reservation policy,
the petitioners were appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar
Sewak by the competent authority and thereafter they
joined on the said post and are working continuously for
more than 13 years. The petitioners' case for regularization,
in spite of the representations, has not been considered.
Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have approached this
Court.
5. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners have already
worked for more than 13 years and in the light of the
decision rendered in the case 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 petitioners are fit to be
considered. He fairly submits that the petitioners have
already filed representation but no decision has been taken
till date.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State submits
that if the petitioners have filed representation/(s), then
these writ petitions can be disposed of for consideration.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that no
decision has been taken as yet on the representation/(s) of
the petitioners, both these writ petitions are being disposed
of directing these petitioners to file fresh representation/(s)
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 four weeks from today.
8. If any such representation/(s) is/are filed within the
aforesaid period, the respondent no.3 shall consider the
case of these 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 sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of such
representation/(s). If any decision is taken in favour of
these petitioners, the benefit of the same shall be provided
to them within eight weeks thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these
writ petitions stands disposed of. Pending I.A. if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
