MAN SING TUDU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE petitioners along with others Were appointed against the Work Charge Establishment in a particular scale on temporary basis vide Annexure -2. One Golesta Tigga was also appointed as such but her services were terminated against which she had filed a writ and considering the fact that the petitioner of that writ was a schedule tribe her case was directed to be specially considered wide Order dated 1.8.2001 passed by the learned single judge of this Court, Annexure -5. Consequently, the petitioner of that writ was considered and she was reinstated vide Annexure -6. The petitioners of this writ were also terminated, they claim that their cases were similarly situated to that of Smt. Golesta Tigga. Considering this aspect of the matter a Bench of this Court by order dated 30.9.2002 directed the counsel for the respondents to obtain instruction as to whether any similarly situated person, such as Smt. Golesta Tigga has been reappointed vide Memo No. 658, dated 1st June, 2002 or not.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that they were appointed in the month of April 1988 and according to the petitioners Miss. Golesta Tigga was appointed in the March of 1988. If the respondents state that the petitioners of this case were appointed after 1.1.1988 then this helps the case of the petitioners also because Miss. Golesta Tigga was also appointed as per own saying of the petitioners in the March 1988. Therefore, if Miss Golesta Tigga was also appointed after 1.1.1988, then it does not distinguish the case of the petitioners on the appointments. Then one question arises whether the petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts as the case of Miss. Golesta Tigga. This was denied by the respondents that these petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts. But if there was a complete ban on the appointments after 1.1.1988 and since both the appointments were made after cut off date, therefore, the case of these petitioners becomes similar to the case of Miss. Golesta Tigga. Therefore, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners after examining comparatively the date of appointment of the petitioners and that of Miss. Golesta Tigga and to pass a reasoned order and if it is found that the case of these petitioners is on similar footing then these petitioners will be given same relief that was given to Miss Golesta and if it is found that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts as has been the case of Miss Golesta Tigga then they will have to give their reasons by supporting documents with a copy of that to the petitioners. This decisions must be taken by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.