BINOY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Photostat copy of order dated 18th July, 2009 issued under the signature of Sri D.K. Saxena, Special Secretary of Government of Jharkhand is handed over in the Court, which is taken on record as 'A'. Mr. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly contended that although State of Jharkhand should have issued circular/notification or should have framed Rules/Regulations making provision to regularise the services of those daily wagers/temporary/ad-hoc employees, who are working for last more than ten years as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1. However, it seems that without making such a scheme/regulation/notification or circular, services of employees are being regularised by the State as it appears from perusal of order dated 18th July, 2009. Dr. Pathak, learned Senior Counsel has further argued that let Respondents take decision in the case of the petitioner also, in view of their own order dated 18th July, 2009 and in view of the fact that petitioner is working for the last more than 27 years against the sanctioned post.

(2.) Ms. Rakhi Rani appearing for the respondents has stated that although petitioner is working for last more than 27 years, but he is not appointed or is working against the sanctioned post.

(3.) Be as the case may be, facts remains that petitioner is working without confirmation/regularisation for last more than 27 years. State Government is expected to frame Rules/Regulations or issue policy decision pertaining to the regularisation of such employees, who are working for more than ten years, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi . There is nothing on the record and learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to give statement as to whether order dated 18th July, 2009 was passed pursuant to any scheme or not.