BHARAT LAAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization/ absorption of the services to the post of Computer Operator-cumTypist in view of the fact that the services of the other similarly situated persons have been regularized. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Memo No. 1070 dated 26.02.2016, whereby and whereunder the case of the petitioner has not been considered and rejected

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that presently, petitioner is working as a Computer Operator-cum-Typist on contract basis since 2002 against the sanctioned and vacant post in the office of respondents and discharging his duties sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. The services of the petitioner has been regularly extended by the respondents-authorities from time to time without any break. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the services of the similarly situated persons have been regularized in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court, but the case of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered inspite of the fact that he had made several representations for his regularization. Earlier on account of inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6371 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2012 in terms of the Judgment passed on 31.07.2012 in W.P.(S) No.5924 of 2003. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner represented before the respondents along with the order of this Hon'ble Court and vide impugned order dated 26.02.2016 the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner, which is under challenge. Thereafter, pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narandra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, the petitioner again made representation before the respondents for regularization of his services, but no decision has been taken by the respondents for his regularization/ absorption inspite of the fact that he has been discharging his duties since 2002 i.e. for more than 15 years without any complain from any corner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his grievances.