FRANCIS KUJUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions were taken up together for hearing at the stage of admission and for decision. Though in all these writ petitions, nature of prayer is different, but the issues and the reliefs, which the petitioners are seeking are same. In some of the cases, petitioners have challenged the order by which they have been removed from the service and they also seek a direction from this Court to allow them to work till their age of superannuation. In some of the writ petitions, petitioners have prayed to allow them to work till they attain the age of superannuation. Further, the petitioners pray that no fresh advertisement should be published for further appointments and they be allowed to continue to work. They also challenged the restriction, which has been imposed for employment, which is 7 (seven) years. Lastly, they submit that since they were appointed against a scheme, their tenure should be co- terminous with the scheme.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argue that the petitioners were ex-servicemen and were appointed in terms of a scheme. Scheme does not provide any age of superannuation, thus, it will be presumed that their age of superannuation will be the same as that of a government servant. Further, it has been argued that when the scheme is continuing and still in force, petitioners cannot be removed and those removed be immediately reinstated. Their appointment should be co-terminous with the scheme and/or their actual age of superannuation should be as per policy of the Government. It is their case that respondents cannot restrict their term of service to 7 years. The petitioners also submit that the respondents are guilty of discriminating. According to them, some of the ex-servicemen have been allowed to continue for 15 years and whereas some have been removed on completion of 7 years of engagement. As per them, the recommendation of the respondents should be considered and the petitioners should be allowed to superannuate on attaining the age of 62 years. As per them, when the age of superannuation has been later on fixed by the respondents, the maximum length of 7 years of service of the petitioners, as fixed by the respondents, gets obliterated. They lastly submit that now since the State is not getting sufficient work force, the prayer of the petitioners should be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per the scheme, period of 7 (seven) years is the maximum period, which the petitioners can work. Any recommendation or suggestion cannot override the scheme . It is their further case that if someone have been allowed to work for more than 7 (seven) years, petitioners cannot derive any right from such illegal action. As per them, the condition of the scheme is to be strictly followed, without any deviation. He also submits that any correspondences or suggestion will not override the scheme. Further, there cannot be any equality in illegality.