IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5230 of 2011
Arbind Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.P.IV.
st
02: Dated 21 September, 2011
1.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suffice it will be for
disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to respondent no. 2, to
treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the grievances
ventilated in this writ petition in accordance with law, within stipulated
time, as given by this Court.
2. I have heard counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that
they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to respondent
no. 2 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the
grievances ventilated in this writ petition in accordance with law, within
the stipulated time, as given by this Court.
3. In view of these submissions, I hereby, direct respondent no. 2 to
treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the grievances
ventilated in this petition in accordance with law, rules, regulations,
polices and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner
as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of
eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of an order of this Court,
after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or
to his representative and in the light of Annexure3 to the memo of this
petition.
4. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that
the petitioner was already appointed as Peon in the year 1991, whose
services were terminated in the year, 1995 and therefore, C.W.J.C.
No. 3561 of 1995 (R) was preferred challenging the termination order of
the year, 1995. By the order of this Court, the termination order has been
quashed and set aside as per paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the aforesaid
judgment. Thus, once the termination order is quashed, it is alleged by
the counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be reappointment, but,
2.
there must be an appointment, which is already there in existence prior
to termination so that the petitioner may be entitled to the continuity of
the services for several other benefits like pension, gratuity etc. This
aspect of the matter will also be considered by respondent no. 2. The
petitioner voluntarily and readily agrees that for the period running from
1995 till the judgment, he is not claiming any monetary benefit. Let his
services to be continued so that all the benefits like pension, gratuity etc.
may be extended upon the petitioner, in accordance with law.
5. In view of the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
( D.N. Patel, J. )
VK