Sudhir Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Prayer in the writ-petition is for regularisation on a Class-IV post.

Heard.

The petitioner claims that he was appointed on 01.04.1983 on the post of Godown Chowkidar on daily-wages. In the year 2004, he was transferred and posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Special Works Division, Building Construction Dept., Ranchi, however, he continued to work on daily-wages. It appears that vide letter dated 10.03.2010, the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department sought list of daily-wages employees working in the Department. In response thereof, information in respect of the petitioner was also forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Special Works Division, Ranchi. In the counter-affidavit, a copy of the checkslip giving details of the petitioner has been filed. The respondents have stated that in terms of Clause-3 to the Rules notified through Notification dated 13.02.2015 the petitioner is not entitled for regularization, as he is working on daily-wages.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid remarks in the check-slip forwarded to the Department by the Executive Engineer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical objection raised in the case of Dineshwar Prasad Yadav and Others v. the State of Jharkhand and Others [WPS No.2538 of 2015], has been dealt with by this Court, and it has been held that the persons working on a Class-IV post on daily-wages are also entitled for consideration for regularisation in terms of Notification dated 13.02.2015. In Dineshwar Prasad Yadav case, this Court has held as under :-

"6. Insofar as, the contention that daily-wagers do not fall under the one-time scheme formulated by the State Government vide Notification dated 13.02.2015 is concerned, I find that no such classification is indicated under 2015 Rules. In fact Para 43 of the judgment in "Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others" reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 refers to appointment on daily-wages and on casual basis and the onetime scheme envisaged under Para-53 of the said judgment would definitely cover persons continuously working for more than 10 years on daily-wages. The reliance on the decision in "State of Karnataka & Others v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak & Others" reported in (2010) 3 SCC 115 is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, under the scheme formulated by the State Government the persons working prior to 01.07.1984 were eligible for regularisation of their services whereas, the applicants/employees were appointed after the said cut-off date. Similarly, the claim of the employee in "Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Others" reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 was for absorption, which would have resulted in virtual abrogation of the statutory rules for appointment to different cadres by direct recruitment. The present is not a case like the one pleaded in Dayanand''s case."

In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have not taken a plea that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned vacant post. In the context of the objection taken by the State that the persons engaged on daily-wages are not entitled for regularization, in view of order passed in W.P.(S) No.2538 of 2015, it is ordered that, on that count, the claim of the petitioner shall not be rejected.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner''s claim for regularisation in terms of Notification dated 13.02.2015 shall be considered, if he is found otherwise eligible.

The writ-petition stands allowed, to the aforesaid extent.