Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 83 of 2021
Dilip Kumar Mandal ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Executive Engineer, Rural Work Department, Bokaro
3. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department, Giridih
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Murari Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-II
---------
07/Dated: 13.03.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following,
ORDER
1. By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant-petitioner has
assailed the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4937 of 2010, whereby his
application for issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents
and to appoint him on dying harness scheme, was dismissed on
contest.
2. The petitioner in the writ application has challenged the order of
rejection bearing Memo No. 431 dated 02.07.2010, i.e. Annexure-3 to
the writ application.
3. The facts of the case, at present, are not disputed.
The father of the writ petitioner was working as a Roller Driver
in Work Charge Establishment. He died in harness on 10.08.1998
under the Rural Work Sub-Division at Bermo. The petitioner's
application was filed in the year, 1999. However, a decision was taken
in the year 2009. It is further revealed from the record that the learned
Single Judge relying in the case of Ram Prasad Singh and another
Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and analogous cases reported in
2005 (3) JLJR 38, which is a Full Bench judgment of this Court, held
that dependants of work-charged employee are not entitled to claim
appointment on compassionate ground.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since the
petitioner's father had worked for more than 9 years as a Work
Charge employee in the permanent (regular) establishment, therefore,
he can claim for regularization of service and in such case by referring
to paragraph-80 of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is entitled to
be considered for appointment in the rehabilitation scheme.
5. On careful examination of the writ petition, it reveals that there
is no specific averment that the petitioner's father was appointed as a
Roller Driver on 01.11.1988. The appointment letter has also not been
annexed to the writ application. Only from the list of dates, it is
reflected that on 01.11.1988, the petitioner's father was appointed as
a Roller Driver. It is not mentioned that his initial appointment was also
as a Work Charge employee, therefore, we do not find any infirmity or
error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Moreover, the cause of action arose in the year 1998 and in the
meantime, 25 years have elapsed, so at this stage, because of delay
and laches, an order for giving appointment to the petitioner on the
dying in harness Scheme cannot be passed.
7. Accordingly, we find no merit in this intra court appeal and the
same is hereby dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules
(S.K. Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen, J.)
APK/VK
