High Court Jharkhand High Court

Ram Janam Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 21 February, 2003

Jharkhand High Court
Ram Janam Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 21 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 (2) JCR 532 Jhr
Author: M Eqbal
Bench: M Eqbal


ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The matter relates to regularization of services of the petitioner. It appears that various writ petitions have been filed against different departments of the Government of Jharkhand including the Forest Department seeking regularization of services of various persons on the ground that they have been working continuously for the last more than 15-20 years. After taking services from the employees for more than 15-20 years, the Government is taking a stand that their initial appointment was illegal or irregular or those appointments were made without any sanctioned post.

3. In my opinion, it is the officers of the Government, who are responsible for appointing the persons as labourers and. taking work from them continuously for more than 15-20 years. It is not the workers who, at their own, started serving the respondents. If it is presumed that all these appointments were made by adopting backdoor method, it is the officers who are responsible for such appointments. Because of the misconduct on the part of the officers in appointing the persons against the rules, the employees who are working continuously for the last 20 years can not be penalized by removing them from service. If the State of Jharkhand still insists to say that the persons so appointed, are not entitled to be regularized because of their irregular appointment, this Court may think it proper to refer the matter to the CBI for holding a full-fledged inquiry and for fixing the responsibility on the officers, who are and were instrumental in making such appointments so that the Government should immediately take disciplinary action against those officers.

4. However, before passing such
order I once again give an opportunity to
the respondents to file supplementary affidavit and make their stand clear. In the
counter-affidavit the respondents must categorically accept or deny the fact whether
the petitioner has been continuously working without any break since 1985 or not.

Put up this case on 10.3.2003 within first
five cases.