BALESHWAR PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments at length. He has submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the services of the petitioner who was working as computer operator has been terminated and the petitioner has been directed to handover the charge to one Sushant Kumar Sinha, another computer operator said to have been appointed through JAP-IT. He has referred to the order dtd. 28/12/2018 (Annexure-21) and submits that same is under challenge in I.A. No. 7216 of 2022. Upon perusal of this order, it appears that letters dtd. 6/11/2018 and 24/11/2018 were issued by the Joint Transport Commissioner informing that the services of the petitioner were being taken as computer operator without obtaining any order from the regional office.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 as well as the order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 4682 of 2021 disposed of on 27/7/2022 and submits that the said order passed by this court also related to computer operator.

(3.) Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for regularization irrespective of any clause in the scheme for regularization issued by the respondents vide Notification dtd. 13/2/2015 read with Notification dtd. 20/6/2019. It is not in dispute during the course of argument that there is no sanctioned post for computer operator. Learned counsel submits that requirement of computer operator being of perennial nature, it was for the respondents to get the post sanctioned and in view of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled for regularization.