Surendra Sharma vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Mrs. Poonam Srtvastav, J.—By the Court.--Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel on behalf of the respondents.

Counter and rejoinder, affidavits are exchanged and the petition is listed for ''Admission''. As agreed between the respective counsels, the writ petition is heard finally.

3 The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the order of termination dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure-19). The second prayer is claiming regulation on the post for which he was appointed after the termination order is quashed. The assertion on behalf of the petitioner is that similar benefits have been granted in other cases by this Court as well as by the Apex Court.

The petitioner was initially appointed by the competent authority on the post of Chairman (Zanzeer Wahak). Pursuant to his appointment, the petitioner joined his service in the year 1983 and his service book was opened and the petitioner continued to work thereafter. The contention on behalf of the State for termination is that the appointment of the petitioner was made by Land Acquisition Officer, the State of Jharkhand was of the view that the Land Acquisition Officer was not the competent authority for appointing the petitioner on the aforesaid post as well as the fact that the procedure for appointment was also not followed. Similarly situated number of employees were also terminated after serving for a considerable length of period. The respondents claim that the termination of the petitioner is because their appointment on the post on which they were discharging their duty was held to be illegal ab initio. The respective appointment in respect of all the employees were challenged by them in separate writ petition including the present one.

Other similar writ petitions have been allowed. The order was challenged in L.P.A. which was rejected by the Division Bench. Both the orders were again questioned before the Apex Court, in one of the cases, the Apex Court namely in Civil Appeal No. 918 of 2008 annexed with the writ petition, held that the incumbent had worked for a period of ten years and this length of service was taken into consideration. The Hon''ble Supreme Court adopted a liberal view and directed the respondents to set aside the termination order. The Apex pourt directed regularization for the reason that after putting in such a long period of satisfactory period of service, such employees cannot be ousted without any rhyme or reason and if at all their appointment was not by following the procedure of law, the. respondents should have taken steps immediately after the appointment but not after such length of time, specially when they are no more entitled for a job in any other department.

Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2005 (2) JCR 277 (Jhr) : 2005 (4) JLJR 614 and also in the case reported in Suresh Prasad and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, These judgments have also been affirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioner is also entitled for the same regularisation and liberal view and their claim is liable to be considered and the same relief should be granted.

In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure-19) is hereby quashed