IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6431 of 2010
Dilip Kumar Das .............. ............ Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...... ............ Respondents.
..............
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
..............
For the petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P.I
.............
2/01.07.2011
: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction on the
respondents to consider for his appointment in Class-IV post as he is the
retrenched employee of last Census and the decision has been taken
by the respondents to offer employment to the retrenched employees of
Census.
It has been stated that the petitioner was deployed in the work of
Census on the basis of daily wage. Subsequently, after completion of
census work the petitioner was retrenched. A certificate to that effect has
been issued by the Deputy Director, Regional Census Office, Deoghar
clearly mentioning therein that he was working as Class-IV employee.
The Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand
has taken a decision to adjust 602 posts including Class-III and IV post
employees out of retrenched Census employees of 1991. The petitioner,
being one of such retrenched employees, is entitled to get adjusted as
per the provisions of Government resolution issued by memo No.5021
dated 3.11.2004. The petitioner filed representation to that regard before
the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to consider his claim and adjust him in
terms of the said resolution dated 3.11.2004, but till date no order has
been passed.
The respondents have opposed the writ petition and in their
counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to be
considered for adjustment. The policy decision was with regard to the
employees who were paid monthly salary in Census Department, but not
the employees who worked on daily wages basis. Petitioner’ name was
also not included in the list of retrenched employees of Census
Department, 1991. The petitioner is, thus, not entitled to any relief.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts
and materials on record. It is not disputed that the petitioner had also
worked as Class-IV employee in course of Census 1991. Policy decision
does not discriminate the adjustment between the monthly paid
employees and daily wages employees. The respondents have not
considered and have not disposed of the petitioner’s claim by any
-2-
speaking order. They have opposed the petitioner’s prayer in the counter
affidavit in the instant case.
Considering the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing
the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass speaking
order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J)
Shamim/