SUMAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 5522 of 2014

(2.) Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant is working since last approximately 20 years as daily wager in the respondents-Bank. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the respondents-Bank had given appointment upon a vacant sanctioned post and her case has not been considered for regularization. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the fact of the case is covered in paragraph 53 of the State of Karnataka v. Umadebi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and in view of the aforesaid decision, the scheme should have been floated by the respondents for regularisation of this appellant. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that one Interlocutory Application has been preferred in which it has been stated that now the respondents have issued a letter to the effect that the appellant and the other petitioners in the writ petition are now stopped from performing their duties. Scheme has been floated by the respondents-State by office order No.1348 dated 13th February, 2014. This is to the effect that there will be regularisation of some of the employees as stated in the scheme. The said scheme is at Annexure 27 of the Interlocutory Application. On the basis of this, the services of the appellant should have been regularized. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.5954 of 2012 dated 31st July, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside.