Uttam Kumar Gorai vs State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3429 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        W.P(S) No. 2298 of 2021
                 Uttam Kumar Gorai                         .... .... Petitioner(s).
                                             Versus
                  1.State of Jharkhand
                  2. Secretary, Home (Jail), Depart. Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
                  3. The Inspector General(Prison), Home (Jail), Depart. Govt. of Jharkhand,
                  Ranchi
                  4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Chaibasa          .... .... Respondent(s)
                                              ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

                 For the Petitioner(s)         : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
                 For the State                 : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
                                               ------
         6/29.08.2022
                   Heard the parties.

By filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed to regularize his services against the sanctioned post of driver as he has continuously worked since 1999 till July, 2014 in Chaibasa(Jharkhand).

Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was appointed on temporary basis against Class-IV post of driver in 1999 and he worked continuously till July, 2014. After July 2014 he was verbally stopped from performing his work. He prays that his service be regularized considering the length of period which he has served i.e from 1999 to 2014.

The aforesaid fact clearly suggests that even if the petitioner has worked, he worked till 2014. It is admitted by the petitioner that he was appointed on temporary basis. No prayer has been made in the writ application to reinstate the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2018) 12 SCC 50 has held that regularization can be claimed while in service and not after termination. Appointment for a temporary period comes to an end at the end of that period. Grant of extension to work for some more period cannot make an employee permanent. Such employee cannot claim regularization. Admittedly in this case after 2014 the petitioner has not worked, thus the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ application is misconceived and it cannot be granted considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Balam Prasad & Ors (Supra).

Accordingly the instant writ application stands dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/ C.P 2