- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) The present petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 958 of 2003 along with 3 others making a claim for regularization on the ground that he was also working under the Work Charge Establishment continuously without any break and also for payment of wages from March, 2002. The said writ petition was however dismissed on the plea raised by the Respondents that the said petitioners have been removed from Work Charge Establishment from March, 2002 and thereafter they are not working. Further it was observed that their engagement was no more required. Petitioner along with 3 others went in appeal being L.P.A. No. 361 of 2007 against the impugned judgment dated 7.8.2007 passed in the said writ petition by the learned Single Judge. By judgment dated 9.9.2009 the said L.P.A. was allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Secretary, Road Construction Department to consider the case of the Appellants for their regularization/absorption and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order. The observations of the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 9.9.2009 as contained at para 9 to 12 are quoted herein below:- "9. In the instant case, it appears that undisputedly these petitioners were continuously working in the work charge establishment but their salary was stopped by the order of the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 14.9.2002. A copy of the said letter is annexed, as annexure-4 to the memo of appeal from which it is evidently clear that salary was not paid for want of allotment of fund by the Government. 10. In course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellants produced before us a copy of the resolution dated 18.7.2009 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat Avam Co-ordination Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and submitted that in the light of the Supreme Court judgment, the Government of Jharkhand has decided to consider the case of employees who have continuously worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned post as one time-measure. Mr. Tandon, learned Standing Counsel, very fairly submitted that the case of the appellants shall be considered by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. 11. Having regard to the facts that appellants admittedly have worked for more than 20 years in work charge establishment and in the light of the letter referred to herein above, at least appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in service in accordance with law. 12. For the reason aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the case of the appellants for their regularization/absorption and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order".
(3.) Petitioner's claim thereafter was however rejected by a reasoned order no. 193 dated 25.5.2010, Annexure-9 passed by the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand on the ground that the educational qualification for appointment to the post of a driver was 8th pass while one of the petitioner in the said case namely Bhola Singh was 7th pass and the present petitioner did not show any educational qualification. The other two petitioners in the said case namely Birendra Kumar Singh and Shankar Dayal Tiwary were considered for appointment on the post of Choukidar and Peon on having found that they are having minimum educational qualification. After coming to know that his claim has been rejected, the present petitioner challenged the said reasoned order in W.P.S. No. 2993 of 2012. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 27.8.2012(Annexure-10) directed the concerned authorities of the Respondent-State to pass a fresh order after verifying the genuineness of the transfer certificate of the petitioner where it was revealed that he studied till Class 9 and therefore it was observed that he has passed Class 8. The said judgment is itself quoted herein below:- "Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.01.1985(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) would reveal that petitioner's case was rejected only on the ground that petitioner is not having requisite qualification while minimum qualification required for the post of Driver is Class-VIII. Perusal of the transfer certificate (Annexure-10) would reveal that petitioner has studied till Class-IX, therefore, he has passed Class-VIII. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that let petitioner move a representation annexing therewith the original of the transfer certificate (Annexure-10). After verifying the genuineness of Annexure-10 fresh decision shall be taken on the representation within 90 days thereafter. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, present petitioner is disposed of with the direction that petitioner shall move a representation along with the original transfer certificate within 30 days. In the event of receiving the representation of the petitioner, concerned authorities of the respondents, after verifying the genuineness of the transfer certificate, shall pass fresh order within 60 days thereafter".;