LAWS(JHAR)-2008-2-29

BALI PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 26, 2008
Bali Prasad Sahu Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sunil Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been working as a driver without any break from 1987 on daily wage against the sanctioned post and there was a recommendation on 26.6.1998 by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division that if work is taken from the petitioner for a long time, he should be paid minimum wages and steps be taken for filling up the post in accordance with law. He relied on paragraph 53 of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. : (2006)IILLJ722SC , which reads as follow: One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one -time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

(2.) AS per the aforesaid order, the State Government and it's instrumentalities were required to start the process within six months. Accordingly, the State Government is directed to ensure that the process in terms of the judgment of Uma Devi, (supra) is started by the State Government and it's instrumentalities, without any delay, if not started.

(3.) WITH these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed off.