Jharkhand High Court
Atwa Gope @ Eto Gope Son Of Sri ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4709 of 2013
Atwa Gope @ Eto Gope son of Sri Chetnath Gope, resident of village
Taisera, P.O. Taisera, P.S. Gumla, District Gumla
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
3. The Special Officer, Gumla Muncipality, Gumla
4. Gumla Muncipality through its Chief Executive Officer having his
office at Gumla, Muncipality Office, P.O.+ P.S. Gumla, District-
Gumla, Jharkhand ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
4/22.02.2022 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-state.
4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"For issuance of an appropriate direction
commanding upon the concerned respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioner on the post of Electricians/Electrical
Inspector or any other equivalent sanctioned and vacant post
in the District of Gumla under Gumla Municipality in view of
the admitted fact that the petitioner is continuously working as
Electrical Inspector in Gumla Municipality since 1990;
For issuance of direction upon the concerned
respondents to consider and dispose of the representation
made by the petitioner along with representation made by the
concerned official/respondents for regular appointment of the
petitioner, in accordance with law, rules, regulations,
notifications and enforceable government orders as may be
applicable considering the admitted fact about the petitioner's
engagement as Electrical Inspector pursuant to written
examination and interview taken by Gumla Municipality on
21.08.1989 and since thereafter, till now, the petitioner is
continuously working and discharging his duties as an
Electrical Inspector in Gumla Municipality."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the writ
petition has submitted that the petitioner has been working since 1990
on the post Temporary Electrical Inspector under Gumla Municipality
and was being paid salary through credit in his bank account. He also
submits that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 31.07.1989
under the signature of the Executive officer, Gumla Municipality, to
appear on 21.08.1989 for a written test and interview on the post of
Electrical Inspector and was also informed that if selected, then the
candidate has to join. The petitioner appeared in the written test and
interview and was ultimately selected and thereafter he has been
discharging his duties. The petitioner has given instances of the work
executed by the petitioner under respondent No. 4.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had made application before the Special Officer, Gumla Municipality
on 06.01.2005 to regularize his services, since the petitioner has been
continuously discharging his duties since 31.07.1989 as a daily wager
and the petitioner's application was duly forwarded by the Authority.
He submits that thereafter repeated representation was made vide
letter dated 13.11.2007 and 28.11.2008, but no action was taken.
7. The learned counsel submits that after the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2006) 4 SCC 1 (Secretary,
State of Karnataka versus Umadevi and Others) and the judgment
passed in the case of Narendra (2018)3 JBCJ S.C. 291 (Narendra
Kumar Tiwari and others versus State of Jharkhand and Others) the
State has framed scheme for regularization but in spite of that the case
of the petitioner has not been considered so far.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.
4 has submitted that the writ petition itself may be disposed of giving
liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No. 4
and upon filing of such representation, his case will be considered as
per the prevailing rules/norms regarding regularization of service.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition
is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation
before the respondent No. 4 within a period of one month from today
along with a copy of the writ petition and also any judgment/scheme
or circular which the petitioner may seek to rely. Upon filing of such
representation, the respondent No. 4 shall fix a date of hearing for the
petitioner and upon hearing the petitioner pass a reasoned order within
a period of two months thereafter. The order should be communicated
to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided in the
representation. If the petitioner is found entitled for any relief, the
same should be forthwith given to the petitioner.
10. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and
directions.
11. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of
the claim or otherwise of the petitioner and the concerned authority is
required to pass order in accordance with law.
12. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
