VISHNU KUMAR BANSAL, S/O SHRI RADHA BALLABH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.N.93, ROOM NO C 6, NEAR SHIV MANDIR, P.O. P.S. KATWARIA SARAI, NEW DELHI 110016 Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PROJECT BUILDING, PO+PSDHURWA, DISTT. RANCHI, JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With a prayer for regularisation in service in regular payscale, the petitioners, eighteen in number, who were appointed following the due process on sanctioned vacant posts, have approached this Court.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this writ petition are, hereinafter, setout in detail. On formation of the State of Jharkhand on 15.11.2000, a camp office of the Chief Minister was established at New Delhi. Separate offices for the Resident Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer were also established at Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi, to facilitate liaison between the State Government and the Central Government and to provide necessary infrastructure and facilities to the Governor, Chief Minister and other officers visiting Delhi for attending official meetings. Vide Resolution dated 28.07.2001, fourteen posts for the office of the Resident Commissioner, twentynine posts for Chief Executive Officer's office and nine posts for the camp office of the Chief Minister were created. This Resolution was to be published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette. Except two posts namely, Typistcum Computer Data Entry Operator and driver for the staffcar of Additional Resident Commissioner, which were permanent on contract basis, eight permanent posts were created for the office of the Resident Commissioner. For the office of the Chief Executive Officer, one permanent post each of Accountant, Assistant, Billclerk, Cashier and Typist were created. There were eight posts for staffcar driver, three room attendants, four peons, two sweepers and one Typistcum Computer Data Entry Operator, however, these posts were created for appointment on contract. Three permanent posts of Protocol Assistants were also created. These petitioners were appointed on one of the vacant posts, but on contract. Some of them were appointed initially for six months and some of the petitioners for one year, and they all have continued to work on their respective posts till date. Their appointment letters would testify that all the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts, however, not in the payscale sanctioned for their posts by the Resolution dated 28.07.2001. In the letter of appointment of some of the petitioners it was mentioned that they shall be given preference in the regular appointment. The petitioners are paid city allowance and they have been granted additional dearness allowance. They have also been provided travelling allowances and medical facilities, and some of the petitioners are given uniform allowance also. Drivers and Protocol Assistants are paid monthly mobile phone bills to the admissible limit. A brief description of the petitioners' employment can be seen in the table below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2_LAWS(JHAR)4_2017_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Several correspondences in respect of regularisation of the petitioners' service have been brought on record, one of such letter was written on 22.06.2006 by the Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Department (now redesignated as Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department). By this letter, the Resident Commissioner was informed the decision of the Finance Department to revise payscale of the drivers and peons, but this letter is important for a reference to a direction of the Honourable Chief Minister for regular appointment on the posts on which the petitioners and others were appointed on contract. But, no step for regular appointment on most of the posts created on 28.07.2001, was ever undertaken. It appears that some of the petitioners who had worked for several years made a representation to the Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan and to the Government, in response thereof, by a letter dated 22.05.2008 the Deputy Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Department sought opinion/comments from the Resident Commissioner, who on 23.06.2008 forwarded necessary informations to the Department. By this letter the Resident Commissioner send a recommendation for their regularisation. A followup letter was sent by the Resident Commissioner on 06.08.2008, which bears reference of a meeting convened by the Chief Secretary on 30.07.2008 at New Delhi, during his visit at New Delhi. The minutes of the said meeting was communicated to the Resident Commissioner vide, letter dated 02.08.2008. Letter dated 02.08.2008 records that in the said meeting besides the Resident Commissioner, other officers including, the Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Department were also present. It transpires that a consensus emerged in the said meeting to regularise the contractual employees of the Jharkhand Bhawan and, accordingly, the Chief Secretary directed the Resident Commissioner to send details of the contract/dailywages employees to the Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Department for regularisation of their services. A similar letter referring to the previous letters was sent by the Resident Commissioner on 30.10.2010 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. However, the respondents remained unresponsive, constrained, the petitioners have moved this Court. During the course of hearing on 30.09.2016, when the learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of the Court to letter dated 06.08.2008 which bears a reference to the aforesaid direction of the Chief Secretary and other recommendations of the Resident Commissioner, this Court issued a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents took the decision which was brought on record by an affidavit dated 23.01.2017. This decision has been challenged by the petitioners by filing I.A. No. 2474 of 2017 which was allowed.