IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5237 of 2009
Umakant Mishra ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s -
1. The State of Jharkhand;
2. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. Rehabilitation Officer, Deoghar.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar
... ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: J.C. to S.C.-I
03/ 11.07.2011
Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel on
behalf of the respondents.
Counter affidavit is on record and the case is listed for ‘Admission’.
As agreed between the respective counsels, the writ petition is heard finally.
The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the order of
termination dated 22.06.2009 [Annexure-9], which has been stayed, by
which services of the petitioner stands terminated. The second prayer is
claiming regularisation on the post for which he was appointed after the
termination order is quashed. The assertion on behalf of the petitioner is that
similar benefits have been granted in other cases by this Court as well as by
the Apex Court.
The petitioner was initially appointed by the competent authority
on the post of Amin. Pursuant to his appointment, the petitioner joined on
19.04.1989. His service book was opened and the petitioner continued to
work thereafter for almost 20 years. The contention on behalf of the State for
termination is that the appointment of the petitioners was made by Land
Acquisition Officer, the State of Jharkhand was of the view that the Land
Acquisition Officer was not the competent authority for appointing the
petitioner on the aforesaid post as well as the fact that the procedure for
appointment was also not followed. Similarly situated number of employees
were also terminated after serving for a considerable length of period. The
respondents claim that the termination of the petitioner is because their
appointment on the post on which they were discharging their duty was held
to be illegal ab initio. The respective appointment in respect of all the
employees were challenged by them in separate writ petition including the
present one.
Other similar writ petitions have been allowed. The order was
challenged in L.P.A. which was rejected by the Division Bench. Both the
orders were again questioned before the Apex Court. In one of the cases,
the Apex Court namely in Civil Appeal No. 918 of 2008 annexed with the writ
petition, held that the incumbent had worked for a period of ten years and
this length of service was taken into consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court adopted a liberal view and directed the respondents to set aside the
termination order. The Apex Court directed regularisation for the reason that
after putting in such a long period of satisfactory period of service, such
employees cannot be ousted without any rhyme or reason and if at all their
appointment was not by following the procedure of law, the respondents
should have taken steps immediately after the appointment but not after
such length of time, specially when they are no more entitled for a job in any
other Department.
Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision
of this Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others
reported in 2005(4) JLJR 614 and also in the case reported in 2005(3) JLJR
240. These Judgments have also been affirmed by the Apex Court. The
petitioner is also entitled for the same regularisation and liberal view and
their claim is liable to be considered and the same relief should be granted.
In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 22.06.2009 is hereby quashed.
(Poonam Srivastav, J.)
RC