RAJEN BARAIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

(2.) The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6730 of 2011, challenging the order dated 25.8.2011, by which, the petitioner was ousted from service as Road Roller Driver. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 21.11.2014, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, wherein, it had been taken note of the fact that the petitioner was engaged as Road Roller Driver on daily wages on 1.9.1983 initially for a period of one month, and thereafter he was continued on daily wages until his services were dispensed with by order dated 25.8.2011. This Court had also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had worked on daily wages for about 28 years, thereafter he was thrown out of service. The writ application was disposed of also taking into consideration the fact that no resolution / decision had been taken by the State Government for regularisation of service of such employees, in spite of the direction of the Honourable Apex Court in the Case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. This Court had directed the petitioner to give appropriate representation before the competent authority, who was directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner.

(3.) Pursuant to the order of this Court, passed in W.P.(S) No. 6730 of 2011, the impugned letter has been written by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa, to the Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Chaibasa, wherein it has been mentioned that the services of the petitioner was not continuous, due to the fact that the work was not being taken for the whole month from the petitioner. It is further stated in the said letter that there is no requirement of Road Roller Driver, but in case, any appointment is made in future or any scheme is framed by the State Government, the case of the petitioner may be considered. A copy of the said letter has also been forwarded to the petitioner under Memo No. 1859 dated 24.12.2014, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, which has now been challenged by the petitioner in the present case.