IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S). No. 5514 of 2004
...
Chandra Dhan Ram ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Jharkhand
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization,
Chhotanagpur Wing, Ranchi
4. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering
Organization, Works Circle, Ranchi
5. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization,
Works Division, Chaibasa, Singbhum West ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : - J.C. to S.C.-III.
...
03/ 27.11.2009
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to regularize the petitioner’s service and to pay him the arrears of
salary claimed by him from March, 1996 till date.
3. The admitted facts of the petitioner’s case is that he was engaged as a daily
wage worker in the Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division under the
State Government. Earlier his appointment was in the concerned department at
Ranchi and later, his services were engaged in the concerned department at
Chaibasa. The petitioner’s contention is that from 01.01.1985 he was engaged on
Master Roll and he was posted under the Junior Engineer, REO, Ranchi.
Sometime in the month of May, 1987, he was transferred to Chaibasa in
the office of Respondent No. 5 namely the Executive Engineer, REO, Works
Division, Chaibasa. In confirmation of the fact that he had continuously worked
from 01.01.1985 to 30.04.1987, a certificate was also issued in favour of the
petitioner by the then Executive Engineer, REO, Ranchi.
Thereafter, upon his transfer to Chaibasa, his services continued to be
regularly taken by the respondent authorities on and from 01.05.1987 till the date
of filing this writ petition.
The petitioner’s further contention is that after March, 1996 he was not
paid his wages although his services were continued to be taken by the concerned
authorities of the respondents till date. This fact, accordingly to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, is confirmed from the letter (Annexure-4) issued by the
Superintending Engineer to the Executive Engineer calling for an explanation as
to why despite the fact that the petitioner’s services were regularly engaged, he
was not paid the salary from 1996 onwards. Despite such query and directions,
when no reply was obtained from the Executive Engineer and the several
representations of the petitioner having remained unresponded, the petitioner had
preferred the present writ application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the Supreme Court in one
of such cases, where the issue raised by the daily wage employees regarding their
regularization in service, had directed the State Government to take steps for
regularizing all such daily wage workers who had completed 240 days of service
by 01.08.1985. The petitioner’s services commencing from 01.01.1985 was
continuously taken up to 30.04.1987, as has been acknowledged even by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. The petitioner, according to the learned
counsel, is therefore entitled to be regularized in service and also for wages for
the period during which his services were engaged.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand
taken by the respondents is that the services of the petitioner were though engaged
from 01.01.1985 but on assessment it was found that he has not completed
continuous 240 days of work prior to the cut of date of 01.08.1985 and therefore
even as per the directions contained in the Supreme Court’s order, the case of the
petitioner could not be considered for his regularization.
It is further explained that though from June, 1987 till October, 1995 the
petitioner’s services were continuously engaged, but during all such period his
wages were duly paid to him and from 1996 onwards his services were no more
engaged and infact he was terminated from service.
6. From the annexures to the writ application including Annexure-4, there
appears a contradiction in the statement of the respondents. Whereas the counter
affidavit declares that the petitioner had worked only up to October, 1995 and
thereafter his services were terminated, but from the perusal of Annexure-4 issued
by the Superintending Engineer, it appears that the petitioner’s services continued
to be taken till the date when the letter was issued i.e. 08.01.2002.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this aspect of the
petitioner’s case has not been controverted by the respondents in their counter
affidavit.
8. Be that as it may, admittedly the petitioner’s services were engaged on
daily wage basis. It is a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner had
continuously worked for 240 days prior to 01.08.1985 and could therefore be
eligible for the benefits as contained in the order of the Supreme Court in the
analogous case. It also appears that though subsequently the petitioner’s services
were engaged from June, 1987 and continuously thereafter, there is again a
disputed question of fact as to whether the services were terminated in the year
1996 or continued to be taken up to 2002. The letter of the Superintending
Engineer appears to lend support to the petitioner’s claim that his services were
continued to be engaged atleast till 2002. This aspect of the matter needs to be
verified and if it is found that the services of the petitioner were continuously
engaged since after March, 1996 till 2002, then the petitioner would be certainly
entitled to the wages for the period and if no such wages were paid to him, he
would certainly be entitled to claim for the arrears of such wages.
As regards the petitioner’s claim for regularization, this Court cannot
possibly issue any such directions to the respondents.
9. In the light of the above discussions, this application is disposed of with
the following directions:-
(i) The Respondent No. 2 shall verify from the records as to whether
the services of the petitioner continued to be engaged from March,
1996 to January, 2002 and if so, whether any wages were paid to
him. If it is found on verification that the petitioner’s services were
engaged and yet his wages were not paid for the aforesaid period,
the concerned authorities of the respondents shall ensure the
payment of the arrears of such wages for the period the petitioner
had worked, within two months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(ii) As regards the petitioner’s claim for regularization, the respondents
shall re-consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the guidelines
given by the Supreme Court in S.L.A. © No. 18164 of 1999 and
analogous cases and in doing so, the petitioner’s case may be
considered by giving him the benefit of relaxation of age, if he so
deserves.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent
State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/