AJAY RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the part of the order dated 29.10.2009, as contained in Office order no. 1536, so far as the condition mentioned in column (3) by which, it has been decided that the petitioner will not be entitled to get the benefits of GPF and the pensionary benefits in view of the Finance Department Circular dated 09.12.2009 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition and further prayer has been made for a direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith count the service of the petitioner with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. w.e.f. 19.06.1987 and to extend entire consequential benefits along with penal interest in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 3588 of 2004, basing on which the office order dated 29.10.2009 vide Annexure-4 has been issued.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ petition is that the petitioner was continuing as work charged employee since 1987, because of not bringing his services to permanent/regular establishment. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3588 of 2004 and the said writ petition along with batch of cases was disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2005. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by remitting to the competent authority with direction to decide the individual claim of each of the petitioner and to communicate the decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order as evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Due to non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (C) No. 463 of 2006, which was also disposed of vide order dated 05.04.2010. The petitioner being aggrieved by the part of the order dated 29.10.2009 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, so far as wiping out his past services, has filed the instant writ petition invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the impugned order vide Annexure-4 has not been passed in due compliance and spirit of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the services of the petitioner has been regularized, it amounts to continuity of services and consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment but since the past services of the petitioner in work charged establishment has been wiped out, the action of the respondents tant-amounts to violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the initial date of appointment of the petitioner under work charged establishment i.e. 19.06.1987 is wiped out, purportedly, on the basis of a circular, issued by the Finance Department, dated 09.12.2009, the same cannot be legally sustainable because of the fact that the Circular issued by the Finance Department dated 09.12.2009 cannot have any retrospective effect. Moreover, the Circular, which was in vogue, during the time of initial appointment, ought to have been made applicable to the petitioner and on the basis of the said Circular, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the GPF and the pensionary benefits.