Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking regularization in service. He also claims salary/wages for the period 1.8.1995 to 13.5.1998. Annexure -11 letter No. 249 dated 6.3.2007 of Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization (REO), Works Circle, Dumka addressed to the Chief Engineer, REO, Chhotanagpur, Santhal Paragana, Jharkhand indicates that petitioner was engaged on daily wages as a Road Roller Driver on 5.4.1984 at Hazaribagh Division and payments of wages up to 31.7.1995 had been made. In between, he was placed at Deoghar Division on the same post on 3.7.1993. The petitioner and others were taken in Work Charge Establishment by Memo No. 649 dated 28.7.1995, but that decision was cancelled by Memo No. 814 dated 6.9.1995. Those two decisions i.e. 28.7.1995 and 6.9.1995 are annexed as Annexures -2 and 3 to the writ petition. Petitioner has made reference to communication bearing memo. No. 6533 dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure -5) and letter No. 1457 dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure -6) of the Executive Engineer, REO, Works Division, Dumka and Superintending Engineer, REO, Works Circle, Dumka whereby list of employees in daily wages including the petitioner were sent to the higher authorities and the department. He also refers to the letter dated 18.2.2006 of the Respondent No. 4 which is in the nature of a recommendation of the petitioner (Annexure -7). Petitioner contends that subsequent letter No. 1005 dated 26.10.2009 issued by the Respondent No. 5 -Executive Engineer, REO, Works Division, Dumka also contains the name of the petitioner along with other persons forwarded to the department for necessary action in respect of claim of the daily wage employees, however, no decision has been taken in the matter of their regularization. Petitioner also refers to the case of Bachneshwar Prasad Ram, a Daily Wage Peon under the office of REO, Works Division, Godda whose services were regularized by communication dated 29.3.2007 contained in Memo No. 2601 issued by the Under Secretary of the Department.
(2.) RESPONDENTS contend that the engagement of the petitioner was on daily wage on Muster Roll and just after services of the petitioner were taken in Work Charge Establishment, it was cancelled in September 1995. Respondents deny taking work from the petitioner from 6.9.1995 to 13.5.1998. According to them, though he has been engaged as daily wage worker in different scheme and payments have been made as per Measurement Book but he has not worked continuously. Respondents also contend that the appointment of the petitioner was not made against any sanctioned and vacant post, nor any advertisement was issued. The claim of the petitioner for regularization is being contested on these grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after working in the department for several years, claim for regularization should be considered more so in view of Regularization Rules, 2015 notified on 13.2.2015 by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand pursuant to the direction passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in [ : (2006) 4 SCC 1] : [2006 (2) JLJR (SC) 282] and also direction passed in one or the other writ petitions by this Court. He submits that the petitioner has completed more than ten years of engagement under the respondent by the cut -off date i.e. 10.4.2006 which entitles him for consideration under 2015 Rules.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent State does not dispute that Regularization Rules, 2015 have been framed in pursuance of the direction passed in the case of Uma Devi (supra) by the Apex Court. He submits that conditions stipulated thereunder are required to be satisfied for consideration of any such claim for regularization.;