MUNSHI YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) IT is the claim of the petitioner that he has been working on daily wage basis since 1983 under the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma and persons who were working since 1985 as daily wagers have been regularized. Reliance has been placed upon the certificate issued by the Range Officer, Koderma to the effect that he was engaged on daily wage in the year 1983 and had been working satisfactorily. Reliance has also been placed on Annexure -2 dated 31.8.2001 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma making a reference to a vacant post of 'Khansama' in the division and that the petitioner has been working on daily wage since 1.1.1983 as per the requirement of work and that he is accomplished in the cooking job. It is the case of the petitioner that the D.F.O, Koderma made a recommendation for his appointment as 'Khansama' as he had been doing work for the last 18 years on daily wage. A transfer certificate has been annexed showing that he is Class VII pass and his date of birth is 25.2.1970. According to the petitioner by the judgment passed in one or the other case earlier, some persons have been regularized in service.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent - State has submitted that the petitioner was never appointed as daily wage employee against any vacant sanctioned post. He was only engaged as daily wager and he did not go under any screening neither any advertisement were published nor the names were asked from the Employment Exchange. The case of the regularization of persons said to be junior to petitioner is different. Reference has been made to the letter dated 7.4.2005 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand and letter dated 2.4.2005 issued by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand that necessary steps for recruitment of Class IV post including the post of Forest Guards would be undertaken in near future. However, the claim of the petitioner has been opposed.