MD. MUKHTAR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu vide Memo No. 192 dated 3rd April, 2012 and also for a direction on the respondents to pay the arrears accrued to the petitioner on account of non -payment of increments since December, 2000. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Jeep Driver by memo dated 5th December, 1983. However, in spite of the decision of the competent authority, petitioner's service was not confirmed and he was treated as a daily wager. The Government had issued circular for regularizing the services of daily wagers, who were working since 1st August, 1985. Instead of issuing the order of regularization, the petitioner was terminated on 21st March, 1998. The petitioner challenged the said order in CWJC No. 1044 of 1998(R). The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on ad hoc basis and initiate process for regularization of service. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner was taken in service initially on ad hoc basis. Subsequently, the District Establishment Committee confirmed the services of several employees, including the petitioner, by order issued by Memo No. 321 dated 4th June, 2011. In spite of the said confirmation, the petitioner was not given increment since 2000. The petitioner filed representation before the concerned authority, praying for release of his increments several times, but no order was passed on his representation. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) IT has been further stated that during pendency of this writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu maliciously issued a Memo No. 192 dated 3rd April, 2012, whereby the order of the petitioner's confirmation in service has been cancelled. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 3rd April, 2012 by way of addition of prayer and amendment in the writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED J.C. to G.P.V., appearing on behalf of the respondents contested the writ petition. It has been submitted that the petitioner's confirmation was not in accordance with the prescribed Rule and as such has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. The order is not malicious or arbitrary, as alleged. In course of his argument, he accepted that the petitioner's service was confirmed on the basis of the resolution/decision of the District Establishment Committee and no such decision for cancellation of the said order has been taken by the District Establishment Committee. Learned counsel submitted that since the order of confirmation was not in accordance with Rule, cancellation of illegal order cannot be said to be unjust or illegal. He has further accepted that the petitioner's representation, filed before issuance of the order dated 3rd April, 2012, was not disposed of by the concerned authority.