High Court Jharkhand High Court

M/S.B.S.M.D.C.Ltd. Now J.S.M.D vs Choudhary Ram & Ors on 12 December, 2008

Jharkhand High Court
M/S.B.S.M.D.C.Ltd. Now J.S.M.D vs Choudhary Ram & Ors on 12 December, 2008
             Letters Patent Appeal No.150 of 2003
                                       ----
      In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
                                         ----
              M/s Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.
              now M/s Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation
             Ltd & ors                               ...      Appellants
                                    -Versus-
             Choudhary Ram & ors                     ...      Respondents
                                       ----

               For the Appellants            :     M/s Anoop Kumar Mehta
               For the respondent            :     M/s.N.P.Singh & A.K.Singh
               For the State                 :     Mr. A. Alam, Sr. Advocate
                                           ---

               PRESENT:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y.EQBAL
                               HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
                                         ---

                                     CAV Judgment

      Date of CAV:5.12.2008            Date of pronouncement: 12.12.2008

                                            ---

M.Y.Eqbal,J:           This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

               10.2.2003

passed in W.P.(S) No.3228/2001, whereby the learned

Single Judge directed the respondents to prepare a scheme for

regularizing the services of the respondents-writ petitioners within

a period of two months and further held that the petitioners would

be entitled for their regularization in services.

2. The respondent nos.1 to 4 (in short petitioners-respondents)

filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the order dated

22.4.2000 passed by the respondent no.6, Secretary, Department

of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar now Jharkhand, by

which the claim of the petitioners for their regularization in services

was rejected.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

The petitioners-respondents were engaged on daily wages

by the erstwhile company, namely, M/s Eastern Management and

Minerals Ltd. (EMM Ltd.) Koderma and the mine was being

operated by the said company. However, the said company was
2

taken over by the erstwhile state of Bihar w.e.f. 9.3.1986 pursuant

to the order dated 27.8.85 passed by the Supreme Court of India in

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.35248-54 of 1985. The State of

Bihar in turn took a decision to handover the management of the

mica mines and its mining operation to the Bihar State Mineral

Development Corporation for and on behalf of the Government of

Bihar. The case of the petitioners is that they have been continuing

in services on daily wages basis and their services are not being

regularized. A writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge

by passing the impugned judgment, whereby respondents were

directed to prepare a scheme for regularizing the services of the

petitioners and further held that the petitioners will be entitled for

their regularization in services counting the period of their

engagement from the date, on which the management was taken

over by the State Government.

4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant-Bihar/Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation,

assailed the impugned judgment being contrary to law and is

without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the case of

daily wages employees of the erstwhile company for regularization

of their services was duly considered by the Secretary cum

Commissioner, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of

Bihar, Patna on the representation filed by the petitioners and

similarly situated persons, which was rejected holding that the

claim of the petitioners to parity of pay scale and regularization is

not tenable. Learned counsel then submitted that it is the

respondent-State of Jharkhand, who will prepare a scheme of

regularization of services and not the appellant-Corporation.

According to the learned counsel, the petitioners and other daily

wages employees of the erstwhile company, who are continuing in
3

services, are the employees of the State of Jharkhand and not the

employees of the Corporation.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in course of

his argument, referred Annexure 14 to the rejoinder filed in the writ

petition, which is a judgment dated 13.8.2002 passed in CWJC

No.2035/94(R). Learned counsel submitted that similar relief was

claimed by some of the daily wages employees and the writ

petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to

regularize the services of the petitioners.

6. Admittedly the petitioners-respondents have been working

on daily wages basis continuously from 1972-74 i.e. for about 35-

36 years. The petitioners, therefore, have worked for a long time

and as a matter of right, are entitled to get the benefit at par with

the regular employees. The only question raised by the appellants

is that it is the State of Jharkhand, who will formulate a scheme

and not the appellant-Corporation.

7. Mr. Alam, learned counsel appearing for the state of

Jharkhand, submitted that the appellant-corporation is an

independent body and it is the corporation, who has to formulate a

scheme as directed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the impugned

judgment.

8. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment needs

modification only to the extent that the appellant-State Mineral

Development corporation and the State of Jharkhand shall prepare

a scheme for regularization of daily wages employees, who have

been working for the last 30-35 years. The Chairmen, Jharkhand

State Mineral Development Corporation and the Secretary,

Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, shall

jointly prepare a scheme for regularization of services of the
4

petitioners and take a final decision as expeditiously as possible

and preferably within four months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.

9. The instant appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the

aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and the direction,

as indicated hereinabove.




                                                             (M.Y. Eqbal, J. )



            Jaya Roy,J:                                       (Jaya Roy,J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
The     12th     December, 2008,
 Pandey/N.A.F.R.