1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2095 of 2002
Pranab Kumar Ambasta ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2056 of 2002
Suresh Mahto ... ... ........................ Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2083 of 2002
Sunil Horo........... .................... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2091 of 2002
Chhotu Oraon... ... ... ............. ............ Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2092 of 2002
Artotran Khandiat... ... ... ............. ............. Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2093 of 2002
Balram Guria... ... ... ............ ................ Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2284 of 2002
Peter Horo ... ... ... ............... .................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2287 of 2002
Roya Surin ... ... ... ................ ................... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 2119 of 2002
Ajay Thakur ... ... ... ................ ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & ors. ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: M/S. M.K. Verma, M.M. Sharma & Mr. Lakhan Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. S.C.II
C.A.V. on 27.4.2010 Pronounced on 30.04.2010
2
JUDGMENT
07/30.04.2010
The petitioner in the leading writ petition no. 2095 of
2002 was appointed as daily wage worker in 1984 and continued
upto September, 1999 when his service was terminated and since
then he has not been working. The writ petition was filed in the year
2002 claiming that he should be continued as daily wage worker
and should be considered for regularisation.
2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment dated
07.6.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3031 of 1999(R), a copy of
which has been enclosed as annexure-5 to the leading writ petition.
By that judgment a learned Single Judge directed the respondent
authority to absorb/regularise the services of that writ-petitioner
provided he was still working in terms of his appointment letter.
(emphasis mine)
3. The learned Single Judge in the said Judgment dated
07.6.2001 has recorded at two places that the petitioner of that
case was still working on Class-III post, having been appointed on
daily wage basis with effect from 15.5.1982.
4. The order was upheld in L.P.A. and an S.L.P. was
dismissed by the Supreme Court by a non-speaking order.
5. The facts of the present leading case are quite
distinguishable. In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly
been terminated in respect of his daily wage employment since
1999, which means that, apart from explaining the latches for the
period 1999 when he was terminated and 2002 when he filed the
writ petition, he would also have show some legal ground on which
his termination as daily wager could be quashed, and he could be
reinstated as a daily wager. Only thereafter the question about his
regularisation could be examined.
6. In fact, in L.P.A. 649 of 2002 connected with 658 of 2002,
both arising from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
different contempt cases, a Division Bench of this Court by a
judgment dated 24.1.2005 has clearly held that the direction for
considering daily wagers for appointment by granting age relaxation
would apply only to such daily wagers who are still working in the
State Government and not to those who have already been
retrenched/not in service.
7. Thus, the petitioner having already been terminated in
respect of his daily wage appointment two and a half years before
the filing of the writ petition cannot be said to be covered by any of
3
the directions given in any decision, and on the contrary such
terminated employees are clearly covered by the exception carved
out in the earlier decisions, as indicated above in this order.
8. The petitioners of the other connected writ petitions,
described above, are also similarly situated as the present
petitioner, as they have all been terminated prior to filing of their
respective writ petitions.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and
Others Vrs. Debika Guha and Others reported in (2000) 9 SCC
416. It is unfortunate that the learned counsel for the petitioner has
failed to keep abreast with the law and has cited an over-ruled
decision of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Post Master General, Kolkata Vrs. Tutu Das
(Dutta) reported in (2007) 5 SCC 317 may be seen in which the
case of Debika Guha (supra) has been over-ruled.
10. Reliance has also been placed from the petitioners’ side
upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State
Electricity Board Vrs. Pooran Chandra Pandey reported in 2007
AIR SCW 6904 and another decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka Vrs. C. Lalitha reported in 2006 (1)
Supreme 640. The decisions cited above referred to the
proposition of law that there should be no discrimination between
similarly situated employees.
11. As already mentioned above, the petitioners of the writ
petitions are not similarly situated as the petitioner of the writ
petition which had been allowed by the learned Single Judge, in as
much as that person was still in service whereas all the petitioners
herein have been terminated much before filing of the writ petitions.
12. Apart from the aspect of latches involved, no legally sound
ground has been shown, on the basis of which the termination of all
these petitioners as daily wage employees could be quashed, and
they could be reinstated as a daily wagers. Therefore the question
about consideration of their regularization does not arise.
13. In view of what has been stated above, all these writ
petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated: the 30 April, 2010.
Sudhir/N.A.F.R.