GHANSHYAM THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

LAWS(JHAR)-2009-4-196

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Decided on April 09,2009

Ghanshyam Thakur Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs: a)For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing letter No.524, dated 23.2.2004 issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi(Annexure -7) whereby it has been communicated that the appointment of the petitioner made on 23.2.1989 on the ground of being retrenched and displaced has been found irregular and the Govt. have decided to terminate his services. b)For issuance of a writ and or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner who is a poor and displaced person by issuing show -cause notices of threatened termination again and again on flimsy grounds. c)For operation of the impugned order contained in letter no. 524, dated 23.2.04 be kept in abeyance and the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner till the disposal of this writ petition. This is a case in which the petitioner was appointed way back in 1989 and was enjoying regular pay scale as regular employee in the substantive capacity and was even transferred from time to time. However, vide impugned order dated 23.2.2004 issued by the Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand the services of the petitioner was retrenched on the ground that it was found to be irregular after over 15 years and thus, it was decided to terminate the service. The counsel for the petitioner submits that show -cause was given which was duly replied. However, there was no disciplinary proceedings nor any opportunity was given for hearing and thus, it is prayed to quash the impugned order dated 23.2.2004. The respondent State in its counter affidavit filed through one Mr. Dadan Choubey, working as Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi has stated on oath pursuant to the direction issued by the Court that the appointment of the petitioner was not as per due procedure established by the law since there was no advertisement inviting the application for the said post as well as reservation rules were not followed. However, in the same para -4 it has also been submitted that the appointing authority is competent to make such appointment only after following appointment process as per rule. It has further been submitted that there was a policy of the Government to give priority in appointments to the displaced persons and the petitioner herein falls in that category. The counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a common Judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 617,619,620,621,631,632,633,654,661,699 of 2005 wherein vide order dated 16.2.2005 it was held as under: "The services of the respondents were terminated by the appellant -State on the ground that their appointments were made by an authority who was not competent and that no proper procedure was also followed. The learned single Judge rejected the said contention by holding that the State having allowed the petitioners -respondents to join their services and allowed them to continued in the said service for more than twenty years and also by transferring them from place to place and having given regular pay -scale, cannot at a later stage that too after two decades come out with a plea that their appointment was bad and therefore, the services of the petitioners -respondents should be terminated. The present facts of the case is also identical and in any event the fact remains that after such lapse of time entire action of respondents to terminate the petitioner from service that also without initiating disciplinary proceeding and without affording any opportunity of hearing appears to be arbitrary, illegal and against the well settled cardinal principle of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.2.2004 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with retrospective effect within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.;

Click here to view full judgement.