NARENDRA NATH GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ applications have been preferred by the petitioners in each of these writ applications, inter alia, for the following reliefs: -

(2.) FROM the facts stated, it appears that the petitioners, in each of these writ applications, were posted as Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. during the period of 1999 -2001 at various Blocks. At a meeting at the District level Development Committee, held on 08.05.1999, presided over by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, wherein, all the Block Development Officers of the districts had participated, a decision was taken to repair the tube wells and for drilling new tube wells in the several Blocks. Accordingly, the B.D.Os. were directed to execute the work through J.R.Y. Panchayat funds. The Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. were given the responsibility to identify all such tube wells, which were needed repairs in the respective blocks, to be carried out under the Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojna. A General instruction was issued by the Respondent No. 4 by way of guidance that the expenditure for ordinary repairs for each tube wells could be made to the extent of Rs.700 - 800/ - It further appears that pursuant to the decision taken by the District Level Development Committee, the Respondent No. 5, proceeded to implement the directions and for which he had invited bids for selecting the working Agencies/suppliers for executing the work of repairs. The work was finally awarded to one M/s Hridaya Constructions, Chaibasa and the work order was issued on 09.08.2000 to all the concerned Panchayat Supervisors/Panchayat Sevaks/V.L.Ws. Accordingly, the work was executed by the Agency appointed by the Respondent No. 5 in presence of the petitioners and completed during the period 2000 -01. After more than three years, the impugned order dated 20.12.2003, was issued against the petitioners directing them to deposit the amounts specified in the individual orders and a further direction was issued to institute First Information Reports against the Panchayat Sevaks.

(3.) MR . Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the outset that identical issues was raised earlier before this Court in a batch of writ applications, vide W.P. (S) No. 2241 of 2004 and other writ applications, which was decided by a Bench of this Court vide order passed on 18.03.2009. This Court held in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case that the entire action on the part of the Respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and there is total non -application of mind and accordingly, the orders impugned in the aforesaid writ applications were quashed. Learned counsel submits that the same are the factual features in the present writ applications and the petitioners also deserve the same benefit of relief as granted to the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications.