Shankar Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3325 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      W.P.(S) No. 2893 of 2013

     1. Shankar Ram, son of Bilash Ram (deleted v/o dated 23.08.2022)
     2. Lakshman Ram, son of Late Ram Chandra Ram (deleted v/o
        dated 23.08.2022)
     3. Bibhuti Kumar, son of Late Dineshwar Singh
     4. Manoj @ Manoj Ravidas, son of Late Badri Ravidas
     5. Md. Akhtar Raza, son of Md. Salim Ansari
     6. Sadhu Ram, son of Mathur Bhuiyan
     7. Sitaram Bhuiyan, son of Jitan Bhuiyan
     8. Prakash Yadaav, son of Jhari Yadav
     9. Mahesh Ram, son of Jagdish Ram
     10.Krishna Ravidas @ Krishna Kumar Das
     11.Gopal Yadav, son of Sukar Yadav
     12.Jitendra Prasad, son of Shri Lakhan Sao
     13.Angarej Ram, son of Ramchandra Ram
     14.Narayan Yadav, son of Late Chittan Mahto
     15.Prakash Yadav, son of Late Chautari Yadav
     16.Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Prabha Nath Singh
     17.Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Late Shyamala Singh
     18.Ronha Kisan, son of Jitu Kisan
     19.Kartik Nayak, son of Late Bhola Nayak
     20.June Kisan, son of Chhandur Kisan (deleted vide order dated
        23.08.2022)
     21.Raj Prasad Gope, son of Habaj Gope
     22.Alamtab Ansari, son of Late Maqbool Hassan
     23.Bhola Ram, son of Late Pragash Ram (deleted v/o dated
        23.08.2022)
     24.Jeevan Kisan @ Jeevan Kisan Mali (deleted vide order dated
        23.08.2022)
     25.Kartik Ram, son of Basu Ram
     26.Piyush Nath, son of Late Uma Nath (deleted vide order dated
        23.08.2022)
     27.Arun Kumar Mishra, son of Ram Sakal Mishra
     28.Nakul Ishar, son of Jay Narayan Ishar (deleted v/o dated
        23.08.2022)
                                                 ...     ...     Petitioners
                               Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. The Secretary, Tourism Department, Government of Jharkhand,
        Ranchi, officiating from Project Bhawan, Post Dhurwa, Police
        Station Dhurwa, District Ranchi;
     3. The Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation Limited,
        through its Managing Director, officiating from Hotel Birsa Vihar
        Complex, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, Post GPO, Police Station
        Kotwali, District Ranchi;
     4. The General Manager, Jharkhand Tourism Development
        Corporation Limited, officiating from Hotel Birsa Vihar Complex,
        5, Main Road, Ranchi, Post GPO, Police Station Kotwali, District
        Ranchi                             ...        ...      Respondents
                               ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mrs. Aanya, Advocate

---

09/23.08.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Rule/Direction commanding upon the respondents to consider their case for regularization of their services or to consider them for regular appointment after giving them preference over others and age relaxation since they have been working on different posts for more than ten years under the respondent no. 3 on contractual/voucher basis against sanctioned vacant posts in the light of paragraph 53 of the judgment reported in 2006 (4) S.C.C 1, Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi and the judgment dated 31.7.2012 (Annexure- 5) passed by this Hon'ble High Court. And for a further direction to the respondents to pay the minimum pay scale alongwith bonus and other allowances to the petitioners. And for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner nos. 1 , 2, 20, 24 and 26 have expired. He seeks permission to delete the name of the aforesaid petitioners from the cause-title in red ink during the course of the day. He further submits that the petitioner nos. 23 and 28 have already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, he does not want to press the case with regard to petitioner nos. 23 and 28 and seeks permission to delete their name from the cause title.

4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the name of the aforesaid petitioners from the cause title in red ink during the course of the day.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the details of the each of the petitioners who were working with Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation has been given from paragraph 5 to 32 of the writ petition. He submits that a list of employees working under Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation was prepared by the General Manager giving the details of the various petitioners and the nature of job being performed by them. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are

entitled for regularization in view of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi" reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners in the present case enclosing therewith a copy of letter dated 26.05.2020 from which it is apparent that the respondent Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation has still not completed the process of regularization in terms of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for consideration for regularization.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and has submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 4718 of 2012 which was withdrawn and no liberty was granted to the petitioners to file any fresh writ petition and therefore, the prayer of the petitioners is barred by the principles of Res-judicata. She also submits that pursuant to the order dated 17.09.2012 and 10.10.2012 passed by this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 252 of 2011, a scheme for regularization was framed which was duly approved by the Board of Directors on 21.09.2012 and pursuant thereto, an advertisement was published on 07.04.2013 in daily newspaper for filling up the vacancies, in which some of the petitioners had also participated, but ultimately they did not succeed. The learned counsel submits that some of the petitioners had applied pursuant to the advertisement and the others did not choose to apply in response to the advertisement. She submits that some relaxation was also given to the petitioners considering their past experience. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners may be granted in the present writ petition.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that undisputedly the petitioners had moved this Court seeking regularization of their services by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4718 of 2012 which was ultimately withdrawn. It further appears that pursuant to some decision taken by the respondents,

advertisement was issued and some relaxation was granted for persons already working in respondent Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation by giving extra marks in which some of the petitioners had participated and did not become successful and the others did not choose to participate in the selection process.

9. In view of the fact that the petitioners had moved this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No. 4718 of 2012 for regularization of their services and ultimately, they had withdrawn the writ petition, no mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners, can be issued in this writ petition.

10. However, from the perusal of the Annexure- 6 to the rejoinder, it appears that the respondent Jharkhand Tourism Development Corporation has undertaken some exercise for regularization. In such circumstances, if the petitioners have continued to work throughout and till date and any of the similarly situated persons like the petitioners are considered for regularization, there will be no impediment on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners with such similarly situated persons if the petitioners are otherwise found eligible for consideration.

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj