Skip to content


Bhawa Nath Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantBhawa Nath Jha
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Anr
Excerpt:
.....dy. secretary, rural development department, government of jharkhand, ranchi.5. engineer-in-chief, rural engineering organisation, government of jharkhand, ranchi 6. superintending engineer, rural engineering organisation, works division, dumka.7. executive engineer, rural engineering organisation, works division, ranchi. .…. … respondents. -------- coram : hon’ble mr. justice h. c. mishra ------ for the petitioner : m/s a.k. mehta, advocate & nikhil kumar mehta, advocate for the respondent-state : j.c. to sc-iii. -------- 08/ 01.08.2016 heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent state.2. the petitioner is aggrieved by the office order contained in memo no.691 dated 5.11.2004, issued by the respondent no. 6, superintending engineer, rural.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2660 of 2007 Bhawa Nath Jha ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. Dy. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

5. Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Engineering Organisation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Dumka.

7. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Ranchi. .…. … Respondents. -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : M/s A.K. Mehta, Advocate & Nikhil Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the respondent-State : J.C. to SC-III. -------- 08/ 01.08.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order contained in memo No.691 dated 5.11.2004, issued by the respondent No. 6, Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Dumka, which has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application, whereby, though the petitioner was working in the work charged establishment, as Junior Engineer (Mechanical), his service has been regularised on the post of Draughtsman Grade-II, in the lower pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed by the order, as contained in memo No. 6250 dated 13.9.1977 in the work charged establishment, as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the pay scale of Rs. 335-555/-, with admissible allowances. The order of appointment of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ application, which shows that the educational qualification of the petitioner was Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The joining of the petitioner was also accepted with effect from 22.9.1977 by the order dated 4th of October, 1977, issued by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Organisation, Ranchi, which has also been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ application. -2- 4. A letter dated 25.2.2004, issued by the State of Jharkhand in its department of Rural Development, has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ application, whereby it was informed that the State Government had taken the decision to regularise the services of the persons, working in work charged establishment, and accordingly, the details were called for. In the enclosure to the said letter, the petitioner has been shown as serial No. 4 with the designation as Junior Engineer (Mechanical). Thereafter the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 691 dated 5.11.2004, was issued by the respondent No. 6, the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Works Division, Dumka, whereby the services of the petitioner has been regularised on the post of Draughtsman Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. In the said order also, the earlier designation of the petitioner has been shown as Junior Engineer (Mechanical), working in the work charged establishment. There is no reason stated in the said order, as to why, when the petitioner was working as Junior Engineer (Mechanical), his services have been regularised on the post of Draughtsman Grade-II, in the lower pay scale.

5. Thereafter the petitioner gave several representations, which have been brought on record, but to no effect, and ultimately the petitioner has filed this writ application on 9.5.2007, claiming regularisation of his services on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-.

6. By order dated 13.12.2007, learned counsel for the respondent State was directed to seek instructions and to file counter affidavit in the matter and the said order was extended time to time. Ultimately on 11.8.2016, when the matter was taken up, finding that no counter affidavit had been filed by the State of Jharkhand, at the request of learned counsel for the State, the matter was adjourned for today, giving the opportunity by way of last chance for filing the counter affidavit in the matter. It was also made clear that if no counter affidavit is filed, the matter shall be decided on its own merits. Today also, learned counsel for the State submits that he has no instructions in the matter in spite of the fact that the letters have been written seeking instructions.

7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent State is not in a position to inform this Court as to how and why the services of the petitioner was regularised on the lower post of Draughtsman Grade-II, even though he was working on higher post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical).

8. In view of the fact that in the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, there is no reason as to why the service of the -3- petitioner was regularised on the lower post, as also in view of the fact that no reason has been brought on record by the State Government during the pendency of this writ application, since the year 2007 itself, justifying the action of the respondent State in regularising the services of the petitioner on the lower post of Draughtsman Grade-II, it has to be deemed that practically there is no reason for such lowering of the post of the petitioner.

9. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is left with no option, but to direct the respondent authorities to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical), in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-, on which, the petitioner was already working, with effect from 5.11.2004, i.e., the date on which, the service of the petitioner was regularised by the office order, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the monetary benefits, treating the service of the petitioner regularised as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from 5.11.2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, the pensionery benefits of the petitioner shall also be fixed accordingly. The respondent authorities, are hereby, directed to grant all the monetary benefits to the petitioner pursuant to this order, positively within a period of three months from the date of production / communication of this order.

10. This application is accordingly, allowed with the directions as above. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) Amitesh/-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //