Jharkhand High Court
Md. Zubair Hasmi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 6105 of 2019
Md. Zubair Hasmi, aged about 41 years, son of Md. Hasim, Resident
of Mohalla Line, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. Chartra, District Chatra.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. District Chatra
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Respondents : Mr. Piyushita Meha Tudu, Advocate
08/31.08.2022
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for issuance of a writ of or a writ in the nature of
Certiorari, for quashing of the order contained in Memo
No. 427/Establishment dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure-30)
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (Respondent
No. 3), whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner
to regularize him who is working under the Respondents
more than 10 years has been rejected on erroneous ground
which is not tenable in view of the order dated 22.11.2018
passed in W.P.(S) No. 3984/2017 (Annexure-25).
AND
The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ of or a
writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
Respondents particularly, the Deputy Commissioner,
Charta (Respondent No. 3) to regularize the service of the
petitioner in view of the Notification No. 4871 dated
20.06.2019 (Annexure-27) of Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi and Letter No. 5535 dated 12.07.2019
(Annexure-27/1) issued by Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi within stipulated period of time;
AND/OR
The petition further prays for issuance of a writ of or a writ
in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the
Respondents particularly, Respondent No. 3, the Deputy
Commissioner, Chatra for payment of
salary/Honorarium/Daily Wages for the period of
November, 2012 to till date.
AND/OR
For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be
found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order at Annexure-30 dated 17.08.2019 has been passed pursuant to
direction passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3984/2017 decided on
22.11.2018. He submits that in the order passed by this Court in W.P. (S)
No. 3984/2017, it was observed that it was nowhere brought on record
by the respondent as to when the petitioner was disengaged and it was
the specific case of the petitioner that he was still working and so far as
biometric attendance made by the petitioner is concerned, the same was
not disputed by the respondent which showed that the petitioner was still
working. The learned counsel submits that W.P. (S) No. 3984/2017 was
the third round of litigation by the petitioner with the prayer for
regularization of his services and a further prayer was made to quash the
order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra by
which case of the petitioner for regularization was rejected.
4. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid
facts/findings recorded in W.P. (S) No. 3984/2017 that the petitioner was
still working, the impugned order calls for interference as the same
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned
order has been passed after considering the documents produced by the
petitioner and the records available with the respondents. She submits
that the impugned order reflects that the petitioner was given work only
for 38 days during the period from 06.05.1998 to 26.03.2002 and for this,
he was paid daily wages and thereafter for the period from June, 2009 to
October, 2012, he had worked except for the month of November 2010,
December 2010, June 2011 and October 2011 and the petitioner was paid
daily wages. The impugned order also reflects that the petitioner has
been making his attendance through biometric in an unauthorized
manner and on 30.08.2018, the petitioner was given the work for
distributing invitation card and that the petitioner had worked
temporarily for a total period of 3 years and 38 days. The learned counsel
submits that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the total required
period of 10 years was also not completed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering
the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the
impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order dated 22.11.2018
passed in W.P. (S) No. 3984/2017, wherein the petitioner had prayed for
regularization and also prayed for quashing the order dated 20.07.2016
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra by which the case of the
petitioner for regularization was rejected. This Court in the earlier round
of litigation found that the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra had relied on
the notification of the State of Jharkhand dated 13.02.2015 which was
not in existence as it was for a period of only one year and it was
nowhere brought on record by the respondent as to when the petitioner
was disengaged although it was the specific case of the petitioner that he
was still working and so far as the biometric attendance made by the
petitioner was concerned, the same was not disputed by the respondent
which showed that the petitioner was still working. In W.P. (S) No.
3984/2017, this Court considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of
Jharkhand reported in (2018) 3 JBCJ 291 as well as the judgment
passed in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Others
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra with the following
directions: -
"7. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of "Narendra Kumar Tiwari vrs. State of
Jharkhand, reported in 2018 (3) JBCJ page 291 and also in
view of the order passed in the case of "State of Karnataka
vrs. Uma Devi & Others", reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, I
hereby quash and set aside the order dated 20.07.2016 (at
Annexure-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and
remand the matter back for consideration in view of
"Narendra Kumar Tiwari vrs. State of Jharkhand", reported
in 2018 (3) JBCJ page 291 and in view of the order passed by
this Court in "State of Karnataka vrs. Uma Devi & Others",
reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1".
8. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the
respondents have verified the entire records of the petitioner, during
which the petitioner has worked and details of which has been submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner which has been recorded in the
impugned order also and upon consideration and verification of the
records it has been found that during the entire period, the petitioner had
worked only for 3 years and 38 days. The impugned order also reflects
that after 20.07.2016, the petitioner had given his biometric attendance in
an unauthorized manner and he was engaged for one date i.e.,
30.08.2017 to distribute certain letters. It has also been clearly recorded
in the impugned order that after October, 2012, neither any work from
the petitioner has been taken in sanctioned post nor any payment has
been made. The impugned order further reflects that the minimum period
of 10 years continuous service was not satisfied by the petitioner. It is
not in dispute that the earlier circular of regularization issued in the year
2015 which was issued pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) was modified by a
subsequent circular of the year 2019, wherein initial date of cut-off i.e.,
10.04.2006 was changed to 20.06.2019 in the light of the judgment dated
01.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of
Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). This court is of the considered view
that even assuming for a moment that the attendance marked through
biometric attendance after 20.07.2016 is counted, still the petitioner
would not have completed the required 10 years of continuous service
for regularization of his services.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that as per the
records the petitioner did not complete the required period of 10 years of
continuous service as recorded in the impugned order, no relief, as
prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted in the present writ petition,
which is accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
