Jharkhand High Court
Gayatri Dubey @ Gaytri Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 10 May, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3225 of 2023
1. Gayatri Dubey @ Gaytri Dubey, aged about 62 years, wife of Dr. B. K.
Dubey, resident of Dubey Niwas, Dr. V. Dubey Road, Hamidganj, P.O. +
P.S. Medninagar, District Palamu, State Jharkhand
2. Lily Dey, aged about 64 years, wife of Abhijit Das Gupta, resident of
Nawatoli, Near Namdhari Gurudwara, P.O. + P.S. Medninagar, District
Palamu, State Jharkhand
3. Christ Eren Ekka, aged about 64 years, wife of David Minz, resident of
Bhandaria, P.O. Bhandaria, P.S. Bhandaria Block, District Garhwa, State
Jharkhand ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary Rural Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at F.F.P.
Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi
2. Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa, having its office at District
Rural Development Agency, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. Garhwa, District Ranchi
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
th
06/10 May 2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"a. to quash the impugned reasoned order contained in memo no.
311/DRDA dated 14-03-2023 (Annexure-2) issued by Deputy
Development Commissioner, Gahrwa (respondent no. 2) declining the
claim of the petitioners for regularization on the ground that according
to office order no.21 dated 03-02-2011 and resolution no. 1845 dated 16-
05-2018, the petitioners are not like State government employees and,
therefore, they are also not entitled for payment of pension, gratuity,
leave encashment, earned leave, ACP and MACP;
b. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the
impugned reasoned order no.311/DRDA dated 14-03-2023 (Annexure-2),
which has been drawn on the basis of office order no.21 dated 03-02-
2011 and resolution no.1845 dated 16-05-2018, deserves to be quashed
and set-aside, because this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.6042/2015, and
analogous cases has already quashed and set-aside the said office order
no.21 dated 03-02-2011, and resolution no.1845 dated 16-05-2018, by
judgment pronounced on 19-05- 2013(Annexure-3);
c. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioners and grant them status of a permanent
government employee and pay them the following pre and post retrial
benefits:-
i. ACP;
ii. MACP;
iii. Pension
Iv. Gratuity
v. Leave Encashment;
vi. Earned Leave;
d. And pass such other Order/(S) as Your Lordships may deem fit and
proper."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners
had moved earlier before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 7284 of 2017 with other
similarly situated persons and the respondents were directed to verify the
factual aspects/issues involved in the writ petition vis-à-vis factual
aspects/issues involved in other writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5704 of 2015.
The case of the petitioners was considered vide impugned order dated
14.03.2023 and the basis of the rejection of the claim of the petitioners is office
order No. 21 dated 03.02.2011 as well as letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 both
issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi.
5. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order was passed on
14.03.2023 and thereafter in a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court by
similarly situated persons being W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 with other
analogous cases decided on 19.05.2023, the aforesaid two documents i.e. office
order No. 21 dated 03.02.2011 as well as the letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018
have been set-aside to the extent they have held that the Lady Extension
Officer do not have the status of Government Servant and that consequently
they are not entitled to other service benefits such as ACP, MACP, pensionary
benefits etc. to enable the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Ranchi to take a fresh decision in accordance with law taking into
consideration the issues raised by the petitioners as recorded in the said
judgment and in the light of the observations made by this Court in the said
judgment.
6. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 57 of the aforesaid
judgment. He submits that when the basis of the impugned order in the present
case does not survive any more, the impugned order is fit to be quashed.
7. The learned counsel has referred to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondents sworn by Joint Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Jharkhand which has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1
and has referred to paragraph 9 thereof to submit that it is not in dispute that
the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this
Court in W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 with other analogous cases, but as per the
counter-affidavit, the matter has been referred to Law Department for
consideration which is still pending with it and it has been stated that further
Cabinet's approval may take some more time.
8. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be quashed
and this writ petition be disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P. (S) No.
6042 of 2015 so that the case of the petitioners is also considered along with
other similarly situated persons.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through
the materials on record, this Court finds that the impugned order contained in
Annexure-2 has been passed by referring to two decisions contained in office
order No. 21 dated 03.02.2011 as well as letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 both
of which were issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi and have been set-aside in terms of paragraph 57 of the
judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 and other
analogous cases dated 19.05.2023 . Paragraph 54 to 61 of the aforesaid
judgment is quoted as under: -
"54. It also appears that some of the lady extension officers were also
granted the benefits of ACP, MACP, etc. and have also been granted the
pensionary benefits and order of recovery has been passed against them
on the ground that they have been wrongly treated as government
servants. In case, it is again found that the petitioners are not
government servants and are not entitled to such benefits, it is also
required to be examined as to whether there could be an order of
recovery considering the nature of their job, hardships arising out of
order of recovery etc. and if the petitioners have acted in a bonafide
manner.
55. This Court finds that the impugned decisions with respect to the
status of Lady Extension Officer as to whether they are government
servant or not and the consequences flowing therefrom, are required to
be set-aside to enable the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance
with law.
56. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi,
who has issued the impugned orders, is required to closely scrutinize the
background of the appointment of Extension Officer (Industry and
Commerce) and Statistical Investigators on one hand and that of Lady
Extension Officers on the other hand, taking into consideration the
conscious decision of the State government to take a different mode of
selection of Lady Extension Officers to ensure better participation of
local women and whether in this background, different mode of selection
of Lady Extension Officer could be reason to treat Lady Extension
Officers differently from other Extension Officer (Industry and
Commerce) and Statistical Investigator when the mode and manner of
creation of post of all extension officers appear to be identical. The
Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi should
record a specific finding as to the status of the employment of the lady
extension officers and all consequences arising therefrom.
57. Accordingly, the impugned Office Order No.21 dated 03.02.2011 as
well as the impugned Letter No. 1845 dated 16.05.2018 both issued by
the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi are set-
aside to the extent they have held that the lady extension officers do not
have the status of government servant and consequently they are not
entitled to other service benefits such as ACP, MACP, pensionary
benefits, etc. to enable the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Ranchi to take a fresh decision in accordance with law
taking into consideration the issues raised by the petitioners as recorded
above and also in the light of the observations made by this Court in this
judgement.
58. The authorized one or two representatives of the petitioners shall
approach the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department,
Ranchi on 03.07.2023 by filing a detailed common representation
alongwith a copy of this order. Upon filing of such representation, the
Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi will look
into the grievance of the petitioners and fix a date of hearing and pass an
appropriate reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to
the authorized representative by 14.08.2023. The reasoned order be also
communicated to the petitioners through email as well as speed post at
the address which may be mentioned in the representation itself.
59. So far as the various judgments which has been relied upon by the
parties are concerned, they are not being specifically dealt with in this
judgment in view of the fact that fresh order is required to be passed by
the aforesaid authority who has to record findings on facts. In such
circumstances, it will be open to the authority to consider the judgments
which may be relied upon by the parties. If required, the Principal
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi may also depute an
Advocate from the government side for assistance who may also be heard
while passing the fresh order in terms of this judgement.
60. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ
petitions are disposed of.
61. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, are closed."
10. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, it is not in dispute that the case of
the petitioners is similarly situated as that of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No.
6042 of 2015 with other analogous cases, but it seems that the matter has been
sent to the Law Department for recommendation and other formalities which is
yet to be completed. Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit is quoted as under: -
"9. That it is stated that as per direction of the Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S)
No. 6042 of 2015 and analogous cases vide order dated 19.05.2023, the
Petitioners approached the Respondent with representation and the
Respondent/Department had initiated to consider the case of the
Petitioners by sending it to Law Department for recommendation which
is still pending with it as further it will require Cabinet's approval so it
may take further some time."
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the basis of the
impugned order having been set-aside to the extent indicated in the aforesaid
judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which is
accordingly set-aside in the same manner as that of paragraph 57 of the
judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 6042 of 2015 with other analogous cases.
12. It seems that the respondents have not yet taken any decision pursuant to
the judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. It is
accordingly observed that the case of the petitioners be also considered along
with other similarly situated persons.
13. The petitioners to produce a copy of this order before the Principal
Secretary, Rural Development Department, Ranchi along with a representation
and a copy of the writ record .
14. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observations and directions.
15. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
