Posted On by &filed under High Court, Jharkhand High Court.


Jharkhand High Court
Padmawati Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             W.P. (S) No. 3785 of 2011
Padmawati Devi      ...    ...      ...   ...   ...     Petitioner
                           Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others         ...   ...     Respondents
                       ------
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
                       -----
For the Petitioner:    Mr. Sunil Kumar
For the Respondents:   J.C. To G.P. IV
                       ------
              th
04/Dated: 13 September, 2011

      1)     Present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that

the services of the petitioner’s husband may be regularized and now as
he has expired, the petitioner may be given compassionate
appointment and the petitioner is also entitled to all the retiral benefits
because of death of her husband.

2) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of the present
petitioner had been working for approximately 22 years as a casual
labourer with the respondents and he has expired on 20th May, 2002.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a circular issued by the
respondents at Annexure-6 dated 10th May, 2005 and has pointed out
that in pursuance of this circular, the services of the husband of the
petitioner may be regularized and all the benefits flowing from the said
regularization may be given to the present petitioner. Counsel for the
petitioner has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in
contempt case being M.J.C. No.606 of 2000 with other similarly
situated contempt applications which is dated 15th June, 2002.

3) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.18154 of 1999
decided by the Hon’ble Suprmee Court on 30th October, 2000 and has
submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid decision also, the present
petitioner is entitled to all the benefits flowing from regularization of
the services of the husband of the petitioner who has expired on 20th
May, 2002.

4) Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no legally
vested right to the petitioner for the prayer made in the present
petition. Moreover, there is gross delay in filing the present petition as
the husband of the petitioner has died in the year 2002 whereas the

-2
present petition has been preferred in the year 2011. Moreover, the
services of the husband of the petitioner cannot be regularized on the
basis of annexure-6 to the memo of petition and hence also, the
petition of the present petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

5) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this
writ petition mainly for the following reasons: –

i) The husband of the present petitioner was working with
the respondents as alleged by the petitioner as a casual labourer.
He expired on 20th May, 2002 and the present petition has been
preferred in the year 2011 i.e. after several years from the date
of death of the petitioner’s husband. Thus there is gross delay on
the part of the petitioner in preferring this petition.

(ii) Moreover, looking to the claim of the petitioner, it
appears that petitioner seeks regularization of the services of her
husband on the basis of annexure-6 to the memo of petition.
Looking to the annexure-6 it appears that it has been issued by
the State of Bihar on 10th May, 2005. The State of Jharkhand
bifurcated from erstwhile State of Bihar on and from 15th
November, 2000 and therefore, the circular issued by the State
of Bihar in the year 2005 is not binding to the State of
Jharkhand. Similarly, counsel for the petitioner is also relying
upon annexure-9 i.e. letter no.1760 dated 03.10.2009. Looking
to this annexure also, no benefit can be extended to the present
petitioner mainly for the reason that annexure-9 is an order
passed in pursuance of the order passed in SLP (Civil)
No.18154/1999 dated 30th October, 2000. Neither the present
petitioner nor the husband of the petitioner was a party to the
said S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In pursuance of
the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and from the
contempt matter being M.J.C. No.606 of 2000, the order at
annexure-9 has been passed. Admittedly the husband of the
petitioner was not a party to the writ petition before this Court
in W.P. (S) No.1213 of 2003, nor in S.L.P. as stated above.

iii) Moreover, it further appears that regularization of the
services of the husband of the petitioner depends upon several
facts. In this set of circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise
-3-
extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for regularization of the services of
the husband of the petitioner who has already expired on 20th
May, 2002 and therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled to
any benefit flowing from such a regularization of the services of
the husband of the petitioner.

iv) For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is hereby
dismissed.

Manoj/cp.2                                         (D. N. Patel, J)
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.143 seconds.