Jharkhand High Court
Joni Kujur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:17239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1318 of 2019
---------
Joni Kujur, age about 38 years, D/o-Late Joseph Kujur,
Resident of-Mohalla-Shivpuri, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, District-
Latehar, State-Jharkhand. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, P.O.- Project Bhawan, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Home Prison and Disaster
Department, Government of Jharkhand P.O.-Project Bhawan,
P.S. -Jagannathpur, District -Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Inspector General of Prison, Jail Inspectorate,
Government of Jharkhand, Engineer Hostel, Golchakar.
4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Lathear, P.O. & P.S. and
District-Latehar, Jharkhand. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vinit Chandra, A.C. to AAG-III
---------
13/16.06.2025
The petitioner in the instant writ application had
initially prayed for following reliefs;
(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) /the order(s)/direction (s)
Commanding upon the respondents authorities to reinstate the petitioner
since the date verbally removal from her service i.e. 02.02.2018, who
was working since 05.04.2006 daily wager the Sanctioned post on of on
as Female Warder in the District Jail Latehar, vide memo No. 605 dated
31.03.2006, issued under the signature of Inspector General, Prisons,
Jharkhand, whereas the petitioner has completed approximately 13
years continuous job on the aforesaid post and all of sudden petitioner
has been verbally removed 02.02.2018 from her service without there
being on any fault on part of the petitioner, even without taking
orders/instruction from the Inspector General, Prisons, Jharkhand
(Respondent no.3) which is mandatory as per law, as mentioned in Bihar
Jail Manual, and even the matter of regularisation of Petitioner was
pending before the Hon'ble court as W.P.S no.6423/2014.
(ii) Further be pleased to quash the office order dated 12.06.2019 as
contained in Memo No. 1739 (Annexure-A) whereby the respondent
authority denied to reinstate the petitioner in service and also denied to
regularize to the petitioner in the light of judgement passed in W.P.(S) No.
2025:JHHC:17239
6423 of 2014 in 04.02.2019, which is apparent from the said office.
(iii) To regularize the petitioner in the light of Judgment dated 04.02.2019
passed in W.P.S No. 6423/2014 (Annexure-3), passed by this court,
whereby this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the respondents to
take appropriate step for regularisation of daily wagers, who are in
service and have worked continuously 10 years in different prisons in the
state of Jharkhand as expeditiously as possible and come out with a
concrete decision. And
For any other relief or reliefs, which the petitioner is legally entitled for in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. During pendency of this writ application, a
reasoned order was passed rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner for regularization. Thereafter, the Petitioner was
permitted by this Court to enclose the rejection order and an
amended writ application has been preferred in this case
assailing the reason order (Annexure-A at page 63).
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though in the
reasoned order of rejection it has been stated that there are
only 3 sanctioned posts in the concerned Jail, Latehar;
however, in the information sought under RTI, which is part
of this record at page 70; the Superintendent Central Jail,
Medninagar, Palamu had informed the Under-Secretary
Directorate of Jail that in the Latehar, Jail altogether there
are five sanctioned posts which is in contradiction to the
reasoned order.
He further submits that previously also the
Petitioner had knocked the door of this court and this court
directed the Respondents to look into the matter and dispose
of the claim by a reasoned order but the impugned reasoned
order is contradictory to the facts on the face of it; as such
the petitioner may be regularized.
Even otherwise, the Petitioner was working since
05.04.2006; but all of a sudden, she was verbally terminated
without any notice on 02.02.2018 and thereafter, she filed
2025:JHHC:17239
the earlier writ application.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents could not
dispute the fact that in the impugned reasoned order the only
ground is with respect to availability of 3 sanctioned posts
and therefore, the Petitioner could not be accommodated; but
as aforesaid, actually there are five sanctioned posts.
Learned counsel for the Respondents fairly referred
to the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 21.10.2024;
wherein at para 9 it has been categorically stated that "it is
submitted that in view of above-mentioned facts and circumstances it
appears that only 4 sanctioned posts of female warder are presently
available in District Jail, Latehar (two post female warder sanctioned by
State of Bihar and two post of female warder sanctioned by the State of
Jharkhand in District Jail Latehar).
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and the documents referred to
hereinabove and averments made in the supplementary
counter-affidavit; it is evident that the ground taken in the
impugned reasoned order is that due to only 3 sanctioned
posts, the Petitioner could not be accommodated.
However, from the supplementary counter-
affidavit, in unequivocal term, it has been stated that only
four sanctioned posts for female warder are presently
available in District Jail, Latehar wherein two posts of female
warden were sanctioned by the State of Bihar and two posts
of female warden were sanctioned by State of Jharkhand.
6. In this view of the matter there seems no reason as to
why the petitioner has not been considered for regularization
on the sanctioned posts. As stated hereinabove, the ground
taken in the impugned reasoned order for not regularizing
this petitioner is the smaller number of sanctioned posts in
the concerned Jail; however, their own documents and
2025:JHHC:17239
averments made in the supplementary counter-affidavit, it
has been clearly stated that there are four sanctioned posts.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 12.06.2019 as
contained in Memo No. 1739 (Annexure-A); whereby the
Respondent authorities denied to reinstate the Petitioner, is
hereby, quashed and set aside.
The 2nd Respondent is directed to reinstate the
Petitioner and regularize her services, as early as possible,
but not beyond a period of 16 weeks from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order; if there is no other
legal impediments, save and except, the number of
sanctioned posts.
8. Consequently, the instant writ application stands
allowed in aforesaid terms.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/-
