BHAV RANJAN DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in the light of the policy decision issued by Memo no.5940 dated 18.6.1993 by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar(as then was).

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner has been working on daily wage basis for about 29 years, on a sanctioned and vacant post, in the Rural Engineering Organization. A Circular was issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar vide Memo no.5940 dated 18.6.1993 providing for regularizing the services of the daily wagers, who were continuously worked for 240 days before 1.8.1985. The petitioner had worked for more than 240 days before 1.8.1985. He has been working on daily wage basis since 21.11.1981. A list was prepared for that purpose by the Department in accordance with the circular, in which the petitioner's name was at serial no.2. In the same list, names of Sunil Kumar Polai, Ram Prabesh Singh and Shesh Nath Shukla were at serial nos. 3,4 and 5 -below the name of the petitioner. The said persons have been regularized/appointed by the Department by office order No.01 dated 28.01.2010, communicated by Memo no.55 dated 28.01.2010, but the petitioner has been discriminated and has not been regularized. The petitioner made several requests and filed representations before the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, but till date no order has been passed.

(3.) THE respondents have opposed the petitioner's prayer. It has been stated, inter alia, in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vrs. Uma Devi and Ors. (supra). However, the petitioner's claim that he has been continuously working for 29 years against the sanctioned and vacant post has not been denied by the respondents. They have also not denied the appointment of the persons whose names appeared below the petitioner in the list prepared by the respondents for regularization.