ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) At the very outset Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his prayer for direction upon the respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as a driver on daily wages in the month of September, 1994 at Bihar Plateau Development Project (Department of Rural Engineering) and continued to work till 29/11/2000. However, on creation of a new State i.e. State of Jharkhand, he was posted at Commercial Taxes Department, where he has been driving the vehicles of the Department, including the vehicle of Hon'ble Minister of Commercial Taxes time to time, as per requisition sent by Regional Development Commissioner, Ranchi, seeking the services of the driver from the Bihar Plateau Development Project. It has been further stated that his services were also approved by the Finance Department, where the petitioner was deputed along with other and the payment was sanctioned with further direction to initiate procedure for regular appointment and to give preference to the present petitioner along with others in regular appointment. Subsequently, on 1/6/2001, the Department of Law and Justice, Govt. of Jharkhand allowed the payment of the petitioner and he was entrusted with driving the Vehicle No. BHR-16F-2293 and JH-O1A-0299 and thereafter, the petitioner was driving the vehicle of Hon'ble Minister, Law and Justice upto 6/7/2004. However, in view of change in portfolio on 7/7/2004, again he was returned to the Department of Commercial Taxes and since then, he is regularly driving the different vehicles of the said Department. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was receiving the payments from the concerned Department and as such, in view of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1 and in view of Notification of the State of Jharkhand dtd. 13/2/2015, he is entitled for regularization of his services but when no decision was been taken by the respondent-authorities in this regard, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ application being W.P.(S). No. 6532 of 2016, in which, this Hon'ble Court, after considering every aspect of the matter, directed the respondents to take a decision regarding regularization of the services of petitioner in view of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (supra) and also in view of the Notification dtd. 13/2/2015. Since the notification dtd. 13/2/2015 has already been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court as it is not tenable in the eyes of law, again the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon'ble Court.