JURA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has made a prayer for a direction upon the Respondents to treat him to be in continuous service on the post of a surveillance officer after he had been allowed to rejoin following the inquiry and report by the Civil Surgeon. The petitioner has also made a prayer for payment, of his unpaid salary from the date of his rejoining, specially more so in view of the fact that he was allowed to Join and work for a certain period, whereafter he was restrained from performing his duties without any notice. In the alternative, the petitioner prays for direction upon the Respondent No. 2 to agree to the proposal of the Respondent No. 3 contained in the Notification dated 13.8.2001 by which after scrutiny of papers, the Respondent No. 3 recommended that the petitioner should be allowed to rejoin on his original post of surveillance worker.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as a Surveillance worker, whereafter he was promoted in the year 1990 on the post of Surveillance Inspector. The Respondents terminated his services from the promoted post of Surveillance Inspector on 7.4.1995 and held that his appointment on the post of Surveillance Inspector was illegal. This order of termination was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 495/97 (R) before the then Ranchi Bench of the Hobble Patna High Court. By order dated 30.9.1997, the said Writ Petition was dismissed holding that there was no illegality/irregularity in the order of termination issued by the Respondents.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the Writ Petitioner appears to have again tiled CWJC No. 3293 of 2000 (R) for a direction that the Respondents should accept his appointment and pay his salary since the year 1995. The said Writ Petition was again dismissed holding that there was nothing on record to suggest that the authorities had recalled the order of termination that the authorities had recalled the order of termination dated 7.4.1995 and/or had passed an order of reinstatement. Accordingly, it was held that no direction could be given to accept the joining of the petitioner and/or to pay his salary since 1995. While dismissing the Writ Petition this Court observed that the order will not stand in the way of the petitioner in the matter of future appointment. This order was passed on 22.9.2000.