Jharkhand High Court
Sukh Bilas Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 199 of 2022
Sukh Bilas Oraon, aged about 47 years, son of Late Dhima Oraon, at
present residing at Saraitand, Morabadi, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S.
Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary,
Circular road, Ranchi, P.O.- Ranchi, P.S.- Ranchi, District -
Ranchi.
3. Special Officer on Duty-cum-Controller of Examination, Jharkhand
Public Service Commission, Circular road, Ranchi, P.O.- Ranchi,
P.S.- Ranchi, District - Ranchi.
4. Assistant Director, Directorate of G.P.F. finance Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.- Ranchi, P.S.- Ranchi, District - Ranchi-
Jharkhand
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Appellant: Ms. Shristi Sinha, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
For the JPSC: Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
---------
04/Dated: 27.02.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following order, (Per. S. K. Mishra, C.J.)
1) I.A. No. 4360 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant for condoning
the delay of 41 days in preferring the instant appeal. There is no
objection from the respondents. In that view of the matter, the
delay of 41 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby
condoned. I.A. No. 4360 of 2022 stands disposed of.
2) By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has assailed the
order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. (S) No. 4252 of 2010 dismissing the application for
regularization of services of the appellant.
3) The facts of the case are not disputed at this stage. It can be
described chronically in the following manner.
Vide letter 23.08.2002 the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa created gazetted and non-
gazetted posts with the concurrence of Finance Department,
Administrative Padvarg Committee. In that letter 09 sanctioned
posts of gazetted and 35 posts non-gazetted were created for the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as
the Commission). Respondent No. 2 in the meeting dated
31.12.2003 under the chairmanship of the then Chairman of the
Commission resolved that so far as the posts Treasury Sarkar and
Daftari are concerned, the same shall be filled up from those who
have served minimum 180 days and are fit and able for the posts.
It was also resolved that for this publication in the newspaper is not
essential. Besides, in the meeting it was unanimously decided
regarding some other issues.
On 01.04.2002 the petitioner was initially appointed as
Daily Casual Worker. Thereafter, as per the resolution of the
Commission he was appointed on regular basis on 13.01.2004.
thereafter, by virtue of letter dated 16.03.2005 the services of the
petitioner on the post of Daftari were extended till 31.07.2005,
which was extended from time to time and it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that as yet the petitioner is in duty
as a contractual Daftari in the Commission. However, the cause of
action for the petitioner arose when the Commission passed an
order on 10.06.2010 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition), whereby the
services of the petitioner were cancelled and he was reappointed
on job contract basis. Such order was assailed by the petitioner
(appellant herein) before the learned Single Judge and the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ application.
By pointing out the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the
Commission would submit that they obtained opinion from the
Advocate General and on the basis of the said opinion, the regular
employees may be retained/contractual posts and therefore the
order impugned has been passed.
4) It is not in dispute at this stage that the petitioner is in service since
13.01.2004 and he continued to discharge the duties of Daftari till
today. So, there is no stay order passed by any Court or Tribunal
and, therefore, he has rendered services for more than 10 years.
5) It may be noted that the petitioner is officiating in a sanctioned post
of Daftari.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] in para-53 has
clearly held there may be cases of irregular appointments (not
illegal appointments) as explained in various cases. Those persons
who are duly qualified in duly sanctioned posts might have been
made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or
more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals, those may be regularized. So, the question of
regularization of services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of principles settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of referred to above in that judgment.
In that context, the Union of India and the State Government and
their instrumentality should take steps to regularize as one-time
measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have
worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover-up orders of the courts and tribunals and should further
ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill up the
vacant sanctioned posts.
6) Thus, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Hence, we are
inclined to allow the appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is hereby
allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.
(S) No. 4252 of 2010 on 02.03.2022 is hereby set aside.
A writ of certiorari is issued quashing Annexure 9 qua the
appellant and further writ of mandamus is issued to regularize the
petitioner in the post of Daftari from the date he completes 10
years' service in the post i.e. 13.01.2004. He services shall be
regularized and he should be absorbed in the post. He is entitled to
all the financial benefits for the period.
The learned counsel for the appellant will file the requisites in
the Registry for issuance of writ. The entire process should be
completed within a period of 45 days. Hence, the requisites must
be filed within 07 days for communication of the writ.
7) No order as to costs.
8) Urgent copies as per Rules.
(S. K. Mishra, C.J.)
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manoj/Umesh
