Skip to content


Raju Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantRaju Ram
RespondentThe State of Jharkhand and Anr
Excerpt:
.....s.c.-ii. for the respondent no. 2 : mr. sunil kumar sinha, advocate -------- 05/ 22.09.2016 heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent state as also learned counsel for the jharkhand state tribals co-operative development corporation limited (herein after referred to as the 'corporation').2. the petitioner has filed this writ application praying for mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service and to regularize his service in the regular establishment under the respondent corporation. the petitioner was engaged on daily wages to work for trico emporium, under the respondent corporation. the petitioner has since been removed from service and no work is being taken from him from the year 2008 itself.3. learned.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2083 of 2011 with I.A. No. 3942 of 2016 Raju Ram ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Tribals Co-operative Development Corporation Limited, Ranchi. .…. … Respondents. -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the respondent-State : J.C. to Sr. S.C.-II. For the respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------- 05/ 22.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent State as also learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Tribals Co-operative Development Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as the 'Corporation').

2. The petitioner has filed this writ application praying for mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service and to regularize his service in the regular establishment under the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was engaged on daily wages to work for Trico Emporium, under the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has since been removed from service and no work is being taken from him from the year 2008 itself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had completed more than 10 years of his services even on the date of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC1 and accordingly it is a fit case that the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularised. Learned counsel has further submitted that the employees, who were engaged by the respondent Corporation after the petitioner, their services have been regularised by the respondent Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prem Ram Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal and Nirman Nigam and Ors., reported in (2015)11 SCC255 wherein it has been held as follows:-

"0. If that be so, there is no denying the fact that the persons who were junior to the appellant, having been engaged much later than him, steal a march over him in terms of regularisation in service while the appellant remained embroiled in litigation over what was -2- eventually found to be an illegal termination of his service. It is true that the appellant has already superannuated. That does not, however, make any difference. What is important is that the appellant had been appointed as early as in the year 1988 and had, by the time the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case was pronounced, already completed more than 10 years’ service. The Government has formulated rules for regularisation of such daily wagers, no matter the same are the subject-matter of a challenge before the High Court. What is noteworthy is that neither the State Government nor the Jal Nigam has resented the idea of regularisation of those who have served for over a decade. The rules providing for regularisation are a sufficient enough indication of that fact. We do not, therefore, see any impediment in directing regularisation of the services of the appellant on the analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors were regularised and for the release of all retiral benefits in his favour on that basis by treating him to be in continuous service till the date of his superannuation. We make it clear that this direction will not entitle the appellant to claim any amount towards arrears of salary based on such regularisation. Placing reliance upon this decision, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fit case, in which, a direction be issued upon the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner and regularise his service, in view of the fact that the services of the persons junior to the petitioner have been regularised.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the respondent Corporation, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner had moved before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, where the conciliation was held, which failed and industrial dispute was not raised. It is also pointed out from the counter affidavit that the persons, who are said to be juniors to the petitioners, were appointed on daily wages for different branch offices of Corporation itself, and they have been regularised under the policy decision of the Corporation, whereas the petitioner was appointed as salesman for Trico Emporium, which was altogether a different unit under different management and under the agreement, the said Trico Emporium used to sell the products, prepared by the Tribals. It is stated that the said Trico Emporium has already been closed, and accordingly, the service of the petitioner was no longer required. It is also stated that the wages of the petitioner was also paid by the Trico Emporium and not through the respondent Corporation. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that no case is made out for regularisation of the services of the petitioner by the respondent No.

2. -3- 5. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that the case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Ram (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as in the present case, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages for a separate unit and his wages was also paid through the said unit, and not by the respondent Corporation. That unit was under a different management and has already been closed and accordingly, the services of the petitioner has already been dispensed with from the year 2008 itself. In the facts of the case, I find that no case is made out for regularisation of the services of the petitioner by the respondent Corporation.

6. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application also stands dismissed. ( H. C. Mishra, J.) Amitesh/-


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