Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) SINCE in W.P.(S) No. 3234 and 3235 of 2009 common question of fact and law arises, as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) IN this writ application, the prayer of petitioners is for a direction upon the respondents for making payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners for various periods as also for a further direction upon the respondents to adjust the services of the petitioners against the vacant and sanctioned post in the regional office pursuant to the recommendation made by the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 28.03.2008. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to treat the petitioners at par with the other similarly situated employees working under other Pre Examination Training Centres for Scheduled Castes in different districts who have been absorbed/adjusted in other departments vide order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner (in WPS No. 3234 of 2009) was appointed as a Peon and the petitioner (in WPS No. 3235 of 2009) was appointed a Typist -cum -Clerk in Pre Examination Training Centre for Scheduled Caste, Ranchi and appointment letter were duly issued by the Director of the Centre. A recommendation was made by the Tribal Welfare Commissioner on 14.12.2005 for reconstitution of the Pre Examination Training Centres existing in the State of Jharkhand by abolishing those centres and employees who were working in the centres at permanent basis were adjusted in the equivalent post in the State Government. The Tribal Welfare Commissioner vide letter dated 28.03.2008 had directed the Special Secretary, Welfare Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the case of the employees for adjustment of their services against the vacant post in the regional office. Several persons situated in various Pre Examination Training Centre for Scheduled Castes in various districts have already been adjusted/absorbed vide order dated 22.09.2006, but the case of the petitioners has not yet been considered.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents - State.;