STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dtd. 10/12/2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3025 of 2019 whereby and whereunder order dtd. 30/4/2019, passed by the concerned authority of the appellants-State by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service was rejected, was quashed and set aside with a direction to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order.

(2.) The brief facts, necessary for consideration of the lis, stand enumerated as hereunder: The writ petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on 19/11/1979 against the sanctioned and vacant post on account of leave vacancy. Thereafter a fresh notification was issued on 26/12/1979 i.e., after the person who was on leave namely, Mohan Prasad returned, by which the petitioner's service was extended and he was posted in different circle i.e., Jharia Circle on account of non-availability of fresh clerk against the sanctioned and vacant post. On 27/4/1983 another letter was issued stating therein that the case of the petitioner is not the case of leave vacancy on account of issuance of fresh letter of posting of the petitioner in different circle. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was provided pay-scale in view of the fact that the petitioner has passed departmental examination on 1/7/1989. However, after lapse of several years, the service of the petitioner was not confirmed whereas services of the persons who were appointed later namely, Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Vimalendu Kumar, Vikash Kumar and Ramesh Prasad, e.t.c., were confirmed vide memo dtd. 15/7/2005 and they were provided benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme also. Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 4199 of 2011 for quashing the decision dtd. 11/12/2016 by which the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service was rejected. The Court, after going through the materials on record, quashed the impugned decision dtd. 11/2/2016 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for regularization and pass reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, order dtd. 30/4/2019 was passed by the concerned authority by which again the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service was rejected, which has been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3025 of 2019. The learned Single, considering the materials available on record and on appreciation of rival submissions made on behalf of parties as also considering the fact that the writ petitioner is working since 1979 and rendered 41 years of service and going to retire on 31/1/2021, quashed order dtd. 30/4/2019 by which the concerned authority had rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service with a direction to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G. II appearing for the appellants-State has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed gross illegality in passing the impugned order as the same has been passed without considering the fact that the post, on which the petitioner was allowed to continue in service, was not sanctioned. He further submits that the learned Single Judge considering the cases of Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Vimalendu Kumar, Vikash Kumar and Ramesh Prasad, whose services were confirmed as also they were provided with A.C.P. passed the impugned order but that does not create a right upon the writ petitioner to claim regularization in service and consequential benefit of A.C.P even though he was allowed to perform his duty for a period of 41 years as also superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/1/2021. According to learned counsel for the appellant since the learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside.