JHIPA KACHHAP Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for direction upon respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on the post of Driver and for payment of salary at par with similarly situated employee on the Class IV post, since the petitioner has been working on the post of Driver under the Respondents as Daily Wages worker since 20.05.1987 and working regularly in the office of the Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Dumka.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been, delineated in the writ application are that the petitioner has been working as a Daily Wages employee on the post of Driver in the office of the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 has recommended for regularization of services of the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-2 and 2/A to the writ application, but, to the utter surprise and consternation, the petitioner's services has been dispensed with vide order dated 210.2009, as per Annexure-1 to the writ application. It has been specifically averred in the writ application that in spite of the order passed by the authorities vide Annexure-1, the respondents have been utilizing the services of the petitioner, the petitioner has been subjected to hiring and firing policy. Being aggrieved by the non-regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Driver after rendering more than 23 years of services, the petitioner has been constrained to seek redress before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the respondents-authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services on the post of Driver in view of the fact that the petitioner has been rendering services since 20.05.1987 in the office of the respondents to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities and in the process, more than two decades have elapsed, therefore, the legitimate expectation of the petitioner has been belied. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the rising unemployment, the Government of Jharkhand in the Department of Building Construction vide letter dated 17.01.2005 has expressed its concern for regularization of irregular recruits/daily wages, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered and he has been subjected to hostile treatment and hiring and firing. Learned senior counsel in order to reiterate his submissions, has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and others -versus- M.L. Kesari and others, (2010) 9 SCC 247.