KAMLA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this Court seeking following reliefs :

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Peon on daily wages on 10.01.1978 and other petitioners were also appointed between the period from 1976 to 1987. As the services of the petitioners were not regularised, they had moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2035 of 1994(R) seeking regularisation and payment of all the benefits at par with the regular employees. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 13.08.2002 with a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and if the services of the petitioners were not regularised within 30 days then it was directed that immediately they would be paid salary at par with regular employee. It appears that in compliance of the order dated 13.08.2002 of this Court, an office order was issued on 11.12.2002, whereby the petitioners were granted the payscale of Rs. 2550552660603200. Thereafter, by office order dated 04.03.2010, the services of the petitioners were absorbed/regularised as one time measure, on the post on which they had been working and in the scale of pay which was allowed by Office Order 2295 dated 11.12.2002. It is stated that by Office Order dated 16.09.2010, the earlier order passed vide Memo No. 325 dated 04.03.2010 was recalled and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5350 of 2010, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

(3.) Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondents preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 278 of 2011 which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 01.05.2012. Thereafter, by order dated 21.07.2012, the order contained in Memo No. 32 dated 04.03.2010 was revived. However, by order dated 24.09.2012, the payscale of the petitioners were fixed with effect from 04.03.2012, instead of 11.12.2002 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court again.