SUNIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay arrears of wages to the petitioner from April, 1998 till date equal to the salary as that of regular employees after holding that the petitioner has been continuously serving as daily wager on the post of Clerk since 25.12.1982. Further prayer is to direct the respondents to take immediate steps for filling up vacant sanctioned post by a regular process of selection waiving the age restriction and by giving due weightage to the petitioner of his past service in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors. as reported in : (2006)IILLJ722SC .

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as has been made out in the writ application and also rejoinder to the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage worker on 25.12.1982 in the State Trading Division, Ranchi a unit of Forest and Environment Department, and was working sincerely and honestly. However, from 1989 under the order of Chief Conservator of Forest -cum Director, State Trading, Bihar, Ranchi, petitioner and others similarly situated started getting remuneration at fixed amount of Rs.604/ - per month. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ application, vide C.WJ.C No.2059 of 1992 praying therein to regularize the services of the petitioner and the Court directed the competent authority to complete the process of recruitment within four months and if the petitioner applies, his case may be considered along with others giving them due weightage of their past satisfactory working experience but the services of the petitioner seem to have been regularized by the Authority. However, while the petitioner was still under employment on daily wages, Personnel and Administrative Reform Department issued a circular contained in memo no.5113 dated 20.5.1996 (Annexure 3) directing the authorities to regularize services of the daily wagers who have completed 240 days continuously or have completed 10 years of work against the existing vacancies. Pursuant to that, respondent No. 2, Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment issued a letter to all concerned officials for preparing panel of those persons fulfilling the criteria stipulated under Annexure 3 but the respondents when did not do anything, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court, vide C.WJ.C. No.534 of 1998(R) praying therein to direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner. However, this Court vide order dated 11.12.1998 disposed of the writ application by holding that direction had already been given in regularization of the services in the earlier writ application and, therefore, there is no need of giving any further direction. However, it was observed that it will be open for the petitioner to move for initiation of contempt proceeding if the petitioner thinks that order of this Court was not complied with. Pursuant to that, a contempt petition, vide M.J.C No.58 of 1999 (R) was filed but this Court vide order dated 19.2.2000 observed that no case is made out and hence, the contempt petition was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner ventilated his grievance before the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, respondent No. 2 regarding non -payment of arrears of wages and thereupon respondent no.7 made payment of Rs. 10175/ - to the petitioner for the period from October, 1997 to March, 1998 but no payment was made for the period from 14.2.1997 to 13.6.1997 and from April, 1998 till date. Therefore the petitioner again represented the matter before the respondent no.2 for payment of arrears and for the regularization of the services. Uponit respondent no.2 called for a report from the respondent no.3, who in stead of submitting report regarding arrears of wages due to the petitioner, submitted a list of daily wage workers, vide his letter no.2573 dated 24.6.2002 (Annexure 9) showing that the petitioner has been working since 25.12.1982 but still no decision was taken regarding regularization of the services of the petitioner and on payment of the wages and this, according to the petitioner, has necessitated filing of this writ application.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though, as per the respondents, the petitioner had been disengaged with effect from 1.4.1998 but no such order had ever been communicated to the petitioner whereas under order as contained in memo No. 1324 dated 14.11.1986 (Annexure 12) the authority was not supposed to remove daily wage worker under oral order and without giving opportunity to daily wage worker of hearing in the matter of his removal and as such, the petitioner can never be considered to have been disengaged with effect from 1.4.1998.