GANESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner-appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 04th November, 2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3451/2010 by which, the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. The petitioner-appellant's claim, in the writ petition, is that the respondents be directed to appoint him as Computer Operator in the office of the District Rural Development Agency, Lohardaga as the petitioner had been engaged by the respondents to do the work from 6th September, 1998 and since then he has been working regularly. The petitioner's writ petition was dismissed on the ground of coming into foree of the new Rule, which provides for only coutractual appointment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submitted that before coming into force of the new decision of engaging Computer Operators on contractual basis, there was a decision of the Central Government, communicated vide communication dated 8th September, 2006, wherein, it has been directed that the service conditions' of the employees of the DRDA including the matters relating to appointment, promotion, posting, transfer, pension, gratuity etc. are decided and regulated by the governing body of the DRDA with the approval of the respective State Governments. In pursuance of the said decision through communication of the Central Government, dated 8th September 2006, the State Government agreed for regular appointment of such employees like the writ petitioner and this decision was taken on 8th March, 2008, copy of which was placed on record as Annexure-8 of this LPA.