Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Conservator of Forest, Plantation, Research and Evaluation, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi as respondent in the instant case for which necessary correction shall be carried out in the array of the parties in red ink during the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER is a widow of one late Md. Mumtaz, who is seeking death -cum -retirement benefits in lieu of her husband. Petitioner has been given the benefit of G.P.F., Group insurance admittedly by the respondents, but it is also evident that during the pendency of this writ petition, a decision has been taken by the respondent No. 7, Conservator of Forest, Plantation, Research and Evaluation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 20.5.2014 (Annexure -8) rejecting the claim for death -cum -retirement benefits to the dependent as the appointment of the employee was never regularized and made only on temporary basis. The said order has also been challenged through I.A. No. 3326 of 2014. Facts as taken out from the rejection order itself show that the employee was appointed as Jeep Driver by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Ranchi in 1985 on temporary basis for 3 months vide Office order No. 252 dated 16.1.1985 (Annexure -1), which was extended on few occasions, one of them being 10.9.1985 bearing memo no, 391. It is also manifest that employee served as Jeep Driver even thereafter for 12 years till 28.2.1997 at Ranchi West Forest Division, Lohardaga and was transferred to Forest Resource Survey Division, Ranchi vide Office order No. 41 dated 17.2.1997 passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Ranchi. He was again transferred to Research and Evaluation Division, Ranchi presently known as Plantation Research and Evaluation, Jharkhand by the Office order No. 35 dated 19.6.1997 and worked there till his death on 20.3.2013. In between the issue of regularization had cropped up and audit objections were also made. The service of the employee was confirmed also by Office order No. 5 dated 31.1.2007 by the author of the rejection order, respondent No. 7, which is at Annexure -2 to the writ petition. However, it is also evident that the same Officer perhaps on the basis of the objections raised by the audit team stayed his previous order by order No. 21 dated 15.6.2007. The respondent No. 7 took note of all these facts, however came to the conclusion that till the death of the employee he remained in engagement on temporary basis and his services were never regularized, therefore, death -cum -retirement benefits could not accrue to the dependents.
(3.) VARIOUS grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned order and the stand of the respondents, also stating that such approach is quite inhuman as it takes away all the benefits from the dependents of an employee who served for around 28 years under the respondents only on account of the fact that respondents did not take a firm decision on his regularization. It is also contended that employee was enjoying the regular sale of pay and was working on sanctioned post and was entitled for regularization also as he was appointed by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned in the year 1985, who was the competent authority. Therefore, such rejection is neither proper in the eye of law nor humane.;