LALU MAHATO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners in the police department as permanent employee/choukidar/constable against the sanctioned post, which is still vacant in the Jharkhand police.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are working as Choukidar in the district of Saraikella - Kharswan but their services have not been confirmed as permanent employees. It has further been submitted that petitioners have rendered their services without any salary since long and upon representation of the petitioners, the Circle Officer has sent recommendation for permanent appointment of the petitioners but all are in -vain. It has further been submitted that vide office order issued by Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella - Kharswan on 27.09.2003 in the light of decision taken by the Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 30.07.2003, several Choukidars, who are working since long in the district of Saraikella -Kharswan, their services have been treated as permanent and all have been appointed as 4th grade employee. It has further been submitted that on 04.02.2016, the petitioners have given representation to Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella - Kharswan for their appointment as permanent employee, but, no fruitful action has been taken till date.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similarly situated employees also approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 7844 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2012 directing the respondents -authority as and when an advertisement is made for the appointment on the post of Choukidars, cases of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law as well as in the light of decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors as reported in 2010 (30) J.C.R 161 (S.C.). Thereafter, similarly situated employees approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 1465 of 2011 and analogous cases, which was disposed of by this Court in favour of the writ petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decisions referred to above.