Krishna Prasad Rai vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application petitioner seek direction upon the respondents to absorb his services in the regular establishment with all consequential benefit claiming that he has been working under the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (earlier PHED) from June 1987 prior to the cutoff date i.e. 1.1.1988. He has also sought quashing of the part of the order contained in memo no. 595 dated 5.5.1998 whereby according to the petitioner his services were terminated w.e.f. 5.5.1998 (Annexure-7).

According to the petitioner, he was engaged in the erstwhile Department of P.H.E.D. on Muster Roll basis and in view of the communication of the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) dated 18.6.1987 (Annexure-1) he submitted his joining and started discharging his duties later on from 19.6.1987. He also made representation before the Engineer-in-Chief of the Department to regularize his services on vacant post of orderly peon. It is stated on his behalf that vide order passed on 25.4.1995 he was appointed on the vacant post of orderly peon on the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 (Annexure-3). He submitted his joining on the said post and was discharging his duties, thereafter. Later on by letter no. 14 dated 3.1.1997 addressed to the Officers of the P.H.E.D. instruction were issued to remove/terminate all the employees working on work charged establishment/Muster Roll/Daily wages if they have been engaged after 1.1.1988 (Annexure-4). Acting upon the said letter, Regional Chief Engineer vide his office order contained in memo no. 129 dated 4.2.197 issued a show cause to the petitioner asking him to explain as to why his services be not terminated w.e.f. 7.3.1997 (Annexure-5). The petitioner filed his show cause through Annexure-6 taking plea that he has been engaged from June 1987 before the cut-off date i.e. 1.1.1988. By the order dated 5.5.1998 (Annexure-7) petitioner''s services were terminated by the order of the Regional Chief Engineer but according to the petitioner a perusal of the said order would indicate that he was allowed to work on Muster Roll basis under the division Chas, Petitioner has alleged that persons similarly placed like him have been, thereafter, subsequently taken in regular establishment and getting regular pay scale and other consequential benefits while the petitioner has been discriminated. In these circumstances, petitioner has sought all the reliefs as indicated hereinabove.

Respondent-State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It has been stated on their behalf that as per the record available in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Sub-Division Dhanbad No. II petitioner has worked only from 1.12.1998 (sic--1988?) to 31.1.1989 for different spell of 10 days as labour and has been paid for the said period. There is no evidence or record in the office that he joined on 19.6.1987 as ''Pump Khalasi''. He has never been absorbed on the said post. It is further stated that although he was engaged as peon by the recommendation dated 4.5.1994 but it was done without following the procedure and instruction issued by the Government and vide its memo no. 14 dated 3.1.1997 accordingly, his services were terminated. As such the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed before the cut-off date 1.1.1988 has been categorically refuted and also stated in clear terms in para 8 of their counter affidavit that he was not working after the order of termination dated 3.1.1997 and as such presently he is also not working. Counsel for the respondent, therefore, submits that petitioner has not made out any case or legal right for regularization because since 1997 he has never been working and is not entitled to the relief claimed for. It is further stated that petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2004 after 6 years of passing of the impugned order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. It is apparent that the petitioner has failed to make out a case that he was appointed prior to the cut-off date i.e. 1.1.1988 and the same is strongly refuted and no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed to establish the petitioner''s claim. Otherwise also it appears that the petitioner has never been in continuous service from the date he was originally engaged and as per his own contention he was engaged as peon in the year 1995 which has been terminated by the impugned order of 1998 itself by the order contained at Annexure-7. The petitioner, therefore, has not been able to make out a case for regularization even otherwise in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, that it is only a case of irregular appointment which can be cured. In the circumstances, no relief as sought for can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.