Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Chandra Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3545 of 2023
1. Ramesh Chandra Mahato, aged about 41 years, son of Late
Rajendra Mahato, resident of village- Raghunathpur, P.O.- Sidhagora
Tola, P.O.- Adardih, P.S. - Nimdih, District- Serikela-Khersawan;
2. Saheb Ram Hansda, aged about 48 years, son of Late Ganesh
Hansda, resident of village- Khokro, P.O.- Govindpur, P.S. -
Rajnagar, District- Searikela- Khersawan
3. Laltu Sai, aged about 50 years, resident of late Azmath Sai, Village
& P.O.- Patkum, P.S.- Ichagarh, District- Serailkela-Khersawan
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi;
2. Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa,
District - East Singhbhum;
3. Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela- Khersawan, P.O. & P.S-
Seraikela, District- Seraikela-Khersawan;
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela- Khersawan, P.O. &
P.S- Seraikela, District- Seraikela-Khersawan;
5. Project Director, National Health Mission, Jharkhand, Namkum,
P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District- Ranchi;
6. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Seraikela-Khersawan,
P.O. & P.S- Seraikela, District- Seraikela- Khersawan
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
: Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Anand (No.2), AC to GP-IV
---
10/01.05.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"That in the instant writ application, the petitioners pray for grant of
an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) for quashing a decision
dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure-3), purportedly taken by the committee
consisting of the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 whereby the
regularization of their services on the post of driver have been
declined.
AND for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus
or any other appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Direction(s) commanding
upon the Respondents to pay the arrear and current salary."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
had moved earlier before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7282 of 2016 and
analogous cases which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
07.02.2019 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case
for regularization of the petitioners. He submits that the case has been
considered but the claim has been arbitrarily rejected, inasmuch as, it
has been stated that the services of the petitioners were not continuous
and the period during which the petitioners were discontinued, has not
been mentioned. He submits that with respect to consideration of each
and every petitioner, there is a chart mentioning sanctioned posts. He
submits that the petitioners were working as drivers.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that there is no dispute that the initial date from which the petitioner
nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been working is 31st July 2005, 20th May 2007
and 31st July 2005 respectively and they had completed the requisite
period of more than 16 years, 14 years and 16 years respectively as
per the documents of the respondents annexed with the writ petition
which is enclosure to letter dated 31.03.2023. The learned counsel
submits that the petitioners have been working as daily wager and the
remuneration has also been mentioned in the said chart.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1021 of 2020 and has
submitted that in the matter of employment in case of scheme as the
scheme involved in the present case that is National Health Mission in
which the petitioners were working, appropriate direction has been
issued by this Court for the purposes of consideration of such cases of
regularization by constituting a high-powered committee.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Vinod
Kumar Vs. Union of India" in SLP (C) Nos. 22241-42 of 2016
decided on 30.01.2024 (paragraphs 2 and 8) to submit that even in
the matter of employment under the scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the incumbent had acquired the status of
permanent employees.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, has submitted that the chart has just given the total period
from start to finish and is common chart for a large number of
employees. The said chart annexed with the writ petition does not give
the exact number of days in which the petitioners have worked for
daily wages. The learned counsel submits that the case of the
petitioners was considered under the scheme and the petitioners do not
satisfy clause no.3(ka)(iii), inasmuch as, their appointment was not
made by any competent authority and the petitioners have not
produced any letter of appointment to show that they were engaged by
the competent authority. He submits that once the case of the
petitioners does not fall within the scheme there is no occasion for
regularization of the petitioners.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the petitioners had moved earlier before this Court making a claim
for regularization on the basis of circular issued by the state
government vide notification/ resolution dated 13.02.2015. The said
resolution was modified in the year 2019 which has also been annexed
by the petitioners along with the writ petition. The said writ petition
was disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
"In view of the above limited prayer, all these writ petitions are
disposed of with liberty to each and every petitioner to file a detail
representations before the concerned authority within four weeks from
today and the concerned authority is directed to determine the factual
aspect of each and every individual after following the principle of
nature justice within twelve weeks and upon such determination, the
notification/resolution dated 13.02.2015 issued for regularization
should be applied keeping in mind the judgment passed by the Apex
Court as well as the order passed by this Court. If one or other
individual is found entitle for regularization, the benefit should be
extended to them including the monetary benefits."
9. Apparently, the impugned order has been passed after
considering the case of the petitioners in terms of the scheme for
regularization as framed by the state government and from the perusal
of the impugned order the case of each of the petitioners has been
taken into consideration. The records of the case indicate that the
petitioners were working in National Health Mission which is a
scheme formulated by the Central Government and jointly under
implementation of the Central Government and the State Government.
It further appears that from the initial date of engagement of the
petitioners, the petitioners have admittedly completed the period of 10
years, but the exact period during which the petitioners had worked as
daily wagers is neither mentioned in the impugned order nor it is
mentioned in the chart annexed with the writ petition. However, the
chart indicates the total period of work.
10. This Court finds that apart from the aforesaid fact with regard
to Clause 3(ka)(i) of the Regularization Rules of 2015, the respondents
have also alleged that the petitioners do not satisfy Clause 3(ka)(iii),
i.e., the appointment should have been made by the competent
authority, inasmuch as, the petitioners have neither produced any
appointment letter nor any letter of engagement and there is no
material as to how the petitioners were engaged in the work in
National Health Mission.
11. In such circumstances, this Court finds that so far as Clause
3(ka)(iii) of the Regularization Rules of 2015 is concerned, there can
be no dispute that the petitioners do not satisfy the said condition
although with regard to Clause no. 3(ka)(i) of the Regularization Rules
of 2015 there is some vagueness in the impugned order.
12. This Court is of the considered view that the claim of the
petitioners was being considered in terms of the scheme framed by the
State Government and in order to have any benefit under the scheme,
the petitioners were required to satisfy each and every condition
mentioned therein. Admittedly, the petitioners do not satisfy Clause 3
(ka)(iii) of the Regularization Rules of 2015, inasmuch as, even before
this Court no material has been produced as to how and in what
manner the petitioners have been engaged. The fact remains that the
petitioners have been working under the scheme i.e., National Health
Mission formulated by the Central Government and the State
Government.
13. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order refusing to regularize the petitioners.
14. This Court further finds that the judgment in "Vinod Kumar
Vs. Union of India" (Supra), as relied upon by the petitioners, does
not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the case of the
petitioners has been considered by the respondents as per the scheme
formulated by the respondents and that too, by the orders passed by
this Court. There is no fresh scheme for regularization framed by the
State Government or Central Government with respect to
regularization of persons working under National Health Mission.
15. However, if in terms of the order passed by this Court in
W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2020, if any scheme is framed for the purposes of
regularization of persons working in one or the other scheme
implemented by the State/ Central Government, including the National
Health Mission, and the petitioners are found to be similarly situated ,
then this order will not be an impediment for the petitioners to claim
any benefit in terms of such scheme to be framed and as may be
applicable to the petitioners.
16. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
