ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. CMD-CUM CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the vacant and sanctioned post on which some of them are working continuously without any breakage in service in between the year 2000-2017. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order contained in letter No. 471 dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure-13) issued under the signature of Dy. General Manager ( Personnel) by which the petitioners have been disengaged from the services.

(2.) The short facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners had been working as skilled and unskilled daily wages employees on ad hoc basis since long in different Districts of State of Jharkhand. Despite the continuous service being rendered by the petitioners, without any breakage though, being appointed on the sanctioned and vacant post, their services were not regularized by the respondents even after their best pursuance and the representation made from time to time before the respondents. It is specific case of the petitioners that for regularization of the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, an agreement was entered between the President of Labour Union and Deputy General Manager (Personnel) and a declaration was announced on 26.08.2014 whereunder, it was declared that after formulation of Appointment Rules within interval of fortnight the process of regular appointment be finalized. In spite of the aforesaid declaration, the services of the petitioners could not be regularized. Thereafter, vide office order 113 dated 19.01.2016 issued under the signature of DGM (Personnel), the number of sanctioned post of Mandays (skilled) was approved for 470 posts and for unskilled was 1391. Thus from the aforesaid order it is beyond dispute that the sanctioned post is existing on which the respondents are taking the services of the petitioners by subjecting their case to discrimination with similarly situated persons, who had been working on Contractual basis.

(3.) Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urges that the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered for regularization as the petitioners were working on the sanctioned and vacant post and continuously working since long without any break in service. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have illegally and arbitrary floated an advertisement for appointment on skill/unskilled Labourer without showing any consideration for regularization of the services of the petitioners that the period of contract of the services of the petitioners were being extended for the period of 90 days and the petitioner had been continuously working without any official break in service. It is further submitted that vide office Order No. 732 dated 17.04.2017, the contract of mandays workers including the petitioners, who were working on nontechnical post on ad hoc basis was not extended and the petitioners were stopped from discharging their duties after filing of the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents after relying upon the case of Uma DeviOrs. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2006) 4 SCC have issued Letter No. 441 dated 04.04.2018 but they have not implemented the same in its true spirit and the same has not been followed in its pith and substance, which has been held by the Honourable Apex Court.