Skip to content


Shasticharan Mahto and Others Vs. Forest - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantShasticharan Mahto and Others
RespondentForest
Excerpt:
.....district-ranchi 7.the divisional forest officer, wild life division, ranchi p.o & p.s- doranda, ranchi, district-ranchi 8.the divisional forest officer, dalma wild life division, ranchi p.o & p.s- doranda, ranchi 9.the range forest officer, wild life division, ranchi, p.o & p.s-doranda, . district-ranchi 10.the range forest officer, dalma wild life, sanctuary jamshedpur, p.o & p.s-jamshedpur, district-east singhbhum … … respondents …. coram: hon'ble mr. justice shree chandrashekhar ------ for the petitioners : mr. jitendra s. singh, advocate mr. amaresh kumar, advocate for the state : ms. ruchi rampuria, jc to sr. sc-i ----- 17/ 11.11.2016 prayer in the writ petition is for regularization of the petitioners who have been working on different class-iv posts on daily wages under.....
Judgment:

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1611 of 2013 ---- 1.Shasticharan Mahato S/O Late Durgacharan Mahato, resident of Village-Chakulia, P.O-Chilgu, P.S-Chandil, District-Seraikela Kharsawan. 2.Jagat Singh son of Late Rathu Singh, resident of Village-Koira, P.S- Bodam, P.O-Paharpur District-East Singhbhum. 3.Rabi Singh son of Late Kahur Singh resident of Village-Kadamjhor, P.S-Chandil, P.O-Chilgu, District-Seraikela Kharsaswan.

4. Bisan Singh son of Late Doman Singh, resident of Village-Koira, P.S- Bodam, P.O-Paharpur District-East Singhbhum. 5.Tarun Singh son of Late Angad Singh, resident of Village & P.O- Kuiyani, P.S-Bodam, District-East Singhbhum. 6.Mirja Shamim Akhatar Beg son of M.G.L.M.Beg, resident of Village- Doranda, Mistry Mohalla, P.O & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 7.Maheshwar Singh son of Late Barju Singh, resident of Village- Khokharo,P.O-Paharpur, P.S-Bodam, District-East Singhbhum. 8.Rabindra Kumar Singh son of Sri Janki Sharan Singh, resident of Village-Adarsh Colony, road no.4, K-108, P.O & P.S-Mango Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. 9.Manjit Sagar son of Sri Baidhnath Sagar, resident of Village & P.O.- Amrpali, P.S-Saintala, District-Balangir, Orrisa. 10.Girdhari Oraon son of Late Ranga Oraon, resident of Village-Faranga, P.O-Cheliyama, P.S-Nimdih, District-Seraikela Kharsawan 11.Smt. Rina Singh wife of Indu Bhushan Singh resident of Village & P.S- Mango, Kalika Nagar, Near Khanka, P.O-Mango District-East Singhbhum. … … Petitioners -Versus- 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Forest and Environment Dept. Govt of Jharkhand, Project Building P.O & P.S Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, P.O & P.S-Jamshedpur 3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand P.O & P.S Doranda, Ranchi 4.The A. Principal Chief Conservator, Wild life Circle Ranchi Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, Ranchi.-4 5.The Conservator of forest Jamshedpur Division, East Singhbhum, P.S & P.O Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum 6.The Conservator of forest Wild Life, Circle, Ranchi, Doranda P.O & P.S- Doranda, District-Ranchi 7.The Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Ranchi P.O & P.S- Doranda, Ranchi, District-Ranchi 8.The Divisional Forest Officer, Dalma Wild Life Division, Ranchi P.O & P.S- Doranda, Ranchi 9.The Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Ranchi, P.O & P.S-Doranda, . District-Ranchi 10.The Range Forest Officer, Dalma Wild Life, Sanctuary Jamshedpur, P.O & P.S-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum … … Respondents …. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, JC to Sr. SC-I ----- 17/ 11.11.2016 Prayer in the writ petition is for regularization of the petitioners who have been working on different Class-IV posts on daily wages under the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioners, who have been working in the Dalma Wild- life, Sanctuary, Jamshedpur on daily wages; petitioner No. 2 since 1982, claim that they were engaged against the posts which were sanctioned and vacant. In the counter-affidavit, however, the respondent-State has taken a stand that the petitioners are employed as per the requirement of work and they are paid for hours of work. It is stated that they have been engaged for works pertaining to road repair, protection, maintenance, plantation etc. and they are paid on the basis of work executed by them, which is recorded by the Forest Guard in a muster-roll. It has been denied that the petitioners have been appointed on sanctioned vacant posts.

4. However, the stand taken in the counter-affidavit is not supported by any documentary evidence. It has also not been disclosed whether the State Government has approved rate for payment on hourly basis. On the contrary, in the counter-affidavit dated 07.08.2013 filed by the respondent No.9, the respondents have stated that the petitioners have been paid salary @ Rs.145.54 per day. Evidently, the stand taken in the Supplementary-affidavit dated 09.11.2016 is false. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State is completely vague and appears to have been filed only for denying the claim raised by the petitioners.

5. In response to averments in paragraph No.23 of the writ petition, the respondents have admitted that this Court passed an order directing the respondent-State to grant preference to daily wages . employees over the outsiders when the posts of Forest Guards are filled up. Not only that, the respondent-State has been directed to grant age relaxation also to the applicants. Prima-facie, it appears that ignoring the aforesaid directions and contrary to its own counter-affidavit, now counter-affidavit dated 08.11.2016 has been filed raising disputes which are not borne from the record of the case.

6. Admittedly, the State Government has framed rules which was notified on 13.02.2015 for regularization of Class-IV employees as one- time measure, in terms of direction issued by the Supreme Court in “Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others” reported in (2006) 4 SCC1 There are certain conditions for regularization of Class-IV employees.

7. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners referring to letter dated 21.06.2016 submits that in response to letter of Deputy Conservator of Forest-cum-Regional Director, Elephant Project, Jamshedpur a list of employees who have been working on daily wages on different Class-IV posts has been sent by the Range Forest Officer. I find that the chart appended to letter dated 21.06.2016 discloses that these employees were engaged on instruction of superior authorities and they are working on daily wages. The Forest Range Officer has endorsed the eligibility of these employees, recommending that they all are laborious and disciplined workers and they can be regularized in service.

8. In “Jharkhand Van Shramik Union Daltonganj, South Forest Division, Palamau, Daltonganj Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.” ( W.P. (S) No. 2404 of 2010), in somewhat similar situation, this Court issued the following direction :

12. “Accordingly, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to initiate the process for regularisation of daily wages employees working in the Department, in terms of Notification dated13.02.2015, and complete the process within six months. Observation of the Conservator of Forest in paragraph no. 8 of the impugned order dated 05.11.2009 whereunder he has held that themembers of the petitioner-union are not working on sanctioned post shal not apply to those daily wages employees whose names appear in the list annexed along with letter dated 31.12.2008. It is . further clarified that this order is not confined only to the employees in the instant writ petition rather, the process of regularisation of daily wages employees working under the Department of Forest and Environment shall cover all such employees who are working for more than 10 years under the Department of Forest and Environment”.

9. In the facts of the present case, it is ordered that the respondent-State shall first examine whether at the time of the petitioners' engagement/appointment or immediately thereafter, posts on which they were appointed/engaged were vacant or not, and if at the time of their appointment/engagement there were sanctioned posts vacant, the respondent-State shall consider granting benefit to the petitioners as if they were appointed/engaged on sanctioned vacant posts.

10. Let claim of the petitioners be also examined alongwith others, for regularization.

11. The writ petition is allowed, in the aforesaid terms. ( Shree Chandrashekhar,J.) Pankaj/Shahid-


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