Manoj Kumar Das vs State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2140 Jhar

                       1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 5397 of 2019
1.  Manoj Kumar Das
2.  Sushil Kumar Pandey
3.  Sunil Chandra Mirdha
4.  Niranjan Kumar Dey
5.  Ram Swarath Singh
6.  Phagu Sao
7.  Premchand Sao
8.  Bilkhu Devi
9.  Raghunath Rajwar
10. Pinku Kumari Mandal
11. Duryodhan Mahto
12. Motilal Mahto
13. Dubraj Singh
14. Manoj Kumar Mahto
15. Budheshwar Prasad Hembram
16. Sadhan Kumar Mandal
17. Srikant Kumbhkar
18. Pushpa Tudu
19. Uttam Kumar Gorain
20. Md. Naimuddin Ansari
21. Shyam Sundar Goswami
22. Nitu Mahato
23. Uneshwari Marandi
24. Gorachandra Mahato
25. Kalawati Kumari
26. Baijnath Mahato
27. Gautam Roy
28. Dilip Kumar Marandi
29. Kumari Chinta Devi
30. Md. Nazrullslam
31. Md. Yunus Ansari
32. Shankar Mahto
33. Srikant Dutta
34. Samir Mandal
35. Mahendra Rana
36. Hemanti Kumari
37. Balram Bauri
38. Ranjeet Kor
39. Ishrat Praveen
40. Sudhir Kumar Mahto
41. Sanjay Kumar Singh
42. Ganesh Murmu
43. Naresh Prasad Mahto
44. Md. Fahimuddin
45. Ramadhin Yadav
46. Amina Khatoon
47. Md. Mahboob Alam
48. Ramu Rajwar
49. Munulal Murmu
50. Sanjay Kumar Hembram
51. Sanjay Kumar
                                            2



     52.   Santosh Kumar
     53.   Kalicharan Marandi
     54.   Niranjan Prasad Mahto
     55.   Urmila Kumari
     56.   Aparna Mahto
     57.   Nikhil Prasad Mahto
     58.   Laldeo Rajak
     59.   Bhagwat Tiwari
     60.   Anil Kumar Mahatha
     61.   Anita Kumari
     62.   Malti Devi
     63.   Mini Kumari
     64.   Nayaan Kumar Mishra
     65.   Jitendra Kumar Choudhary
     66.   Kamal Kumar Bhandari
     67.   Rajeev Kumar Singh
     68.   Lochan Saw
     69.   Chhaya Rani                            .... .... Petitioners
                               Versus
     1.    State of Jharkhand
     2.    Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of
           Jharkhand, Ranchi.
     3.    The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy
           Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
     4.    Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Ranchi.
                                                  .... ...       Respondents
                               ------

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

------

     For the Petitioners       :      Ms. Shalini Kumari, Advocate
     For the State             :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AC to GA-III
     For the JEPC              :      Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
                               ------

6/ 12.06.2023     Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction upon the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners, who have been appointed on the post of Para-Teacher under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, as also for pay parity vis-a-vis regular Assistant Teachers, since they are discharging similar duty as that of regular Assistant Teachers.

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioners were engaged by different educational committees as para teachers under the scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a flagship programme of Govt. of India to universalize the elementary education and the Central Government in partnership with State Government has implemented this scheme. After the

engagement of the petitioners as para Teachers, they started to impart education to students. The petitioners moved this Court for regularisation of their services.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2016 and other analogous matters, in which, the Division Bench, after hearing the counsel for the parties at length, disposed of the same. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is same and similar to the aforesaid case and as such, the instant writ petition may kindly be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments, as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.

5. In such situation, this Court is of the view that since the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2016, vide order dated 16.12.2022, nothing remains to be decided in the instant case afresh. The Division Bench has decided the issue inter alia in para-28 at page-379 in following terms:-

"28. ...... ..... ....

Since herein the writ petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment, which has been made on contract on payment of honorarium and are being governed with their own rules carved out in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, once having accepted the terms of the contract and rendered their services they cannot turn around and claim parity to get minimum of pay-scale. Since the writ petitioners are the engagee on contract basis depending upon the contract and as such on that count also there cannot be direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise the same will amount to re- writing the contract, which is not permission in law."

6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition afresh. It is made clear that the case of the present petitioners shall be guided with the observations and directions as observed in the aforesaid judgment.

7. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr.