Rajen Baraik vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6730 of 2011, challenging the order dated 25.8.2011, by which, the petitioner was ousted from service as Road Roller Driver. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 21.11.2014, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, wherein, it had been taken note of the fact that the petitioner was engaged as Road Roller Driver on daily wages on 1.9.1983 initially for a period of one month, and thereafter he was continued on daily wages until his services were dispensed with by order dated 25.8.2011. This Court had also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had worked on daily wages for about 28 years, thereafter he was thrown out of service. The writ application was disposed of also taking into consideration the fact that no resolution / decision had been taken by the State Government for regularisation of service of such employees, in spite of the direction of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. This Court had directed the petitioner to give appropriate representation before the competent authority, who was directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner.

Pursuant to the order of this Court, passed in W.P.(S) No. 6730 of 2011, the impugned letter has been written by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa, to the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa, wherein it has been mentioned that the services of the petitioner was not continuous, due to the fact that the work was not being taken for the whole month from the petitioner. It is further stated in the said letter that there is no requirement of Road Roller Driver, but in case, any appointment is made in future or any scheme is framed by the State Government, the case of the petitioner may be considered. A copy of the said letter has also been forwarded to the petitioner under Memo No. 1859 dated 24.12.2014, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, which has now been challenged by the petitioner in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the State Government has since been framed the Rules for regularisation of the services of daily wages employees, which has been notified under Memo No. 1348 dated 13.2.2015, by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein it is stated that the persons, who were completing 10 years of service as on 10.4.2016, may be considered for regularisation of their services. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the said Rules, as framed in the year 2015, as the petitioner had already completed 10 years of service on daily wages much prior to 10.4.2006.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting from the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State that the respondent State has filed a Civil Review Petition being Civil Review No. 63 of 2015 against the order dated 21.11.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6730 of 2011, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. However, the fact remains that the Hon''ble Judge, who had passed the said order is not available in this Court due to his transfer to another High Court.

Be that as it may, the order, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, was passed when no Rule was framed by the State Government for the regularisation of the services of daily wages employees. Now the Rules has since been framed and notified under Memo No. 1348 dated 13.2.2015. It is also apparent that the petitioner had worked for a long period on daily wages and had worked as such for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006, and the break in service, if any, was only created break by the respondents, only to defeat the claim of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this writ application is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No. 2, the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularisation in service in view of the new Rules framed and notified under Memo No. 1348 dated 13.2.2015. The petitioner is directed to give a representation to the respondent No. 2, the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, along with a copy of this order, who shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ application is accordingly, disposed of with the direction as above.