Ramdhyan Mishra And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

,,,,

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J",,,,

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.",,,,

Heard Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.",,,,

Arguments of the Petitioner,,,,

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to confirm Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) to the petitioners,,,,

from the date of joining who have been working in different posts in the Forest Department in the District of Singhbhum West. Further prayer has,,,,

been made for quashing of letter dated 656 dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure-10) as well as letter No. 639 dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-11), by which it",,,,

has been said that the date of joining prior to issuance of appointment letter is not proper and as such the date of appointment letter will be treated as,,,,

date of joining.,,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are altogether 13 writ petitioners and the case of all the writ petitioners stand on similar,,,,

footing.,,,,

Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-1 series which relate to appointment letter of one Ram Dhyan Mishra, Petitioner No. 1. Learned",,,,

counsel has submitted that the letter dated 26.05.1980 was issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to join by 20.06.1980 with clear stipulation that if he,,,,

does not join by 20.06.1980 offer of appointment will stand cancelled. It was also mentioned in the said letter that after joining, letter of appointment",,,,

will be issued. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 1 accordingly joined on 17.06.1980 and thereafter vide memo No. 1078 dated 30.06.1980,",,,,

formal letter of appointment was issued and in the letter of appointment also, the date of joining of the petitioner No. 1 was clearly mentioned as",,,,

17.06.1980. Learned counsel submits that similar is the situation with all the present writ petitioners whose details has been mentioned in para-6 of the,,,,

present writ petition.,,,,

Learned counsel submits that one similarly situated person namely David Angaria was granted the benefit of A.C.P. by treating his date of joining,,,,

as the date of appointment and this fact has been mentioned in para-12 of the writ petition. He submits that the fact about grant of aforesaid benefit to,,,,

David Angaria is not in dispute and the petitioners are praying for similar reliefs.,,,,

Learned counsel has referred to the impugned orders contained at Annexures-10 and 11 wherein a decision has been taken that the date of,,,,

appointment letter is to be treated as the date of joining irrespective of the fact that incumbent may have joined the service prior to formal issuance of,,,,

appointment letter. Learned counsel has also referred to Annexure-9 of the present writ petition to submit that such practice has been continuing in the,,,,

department for the last 30 years and it has been mentioned in the said communication by the Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa to",,,,

the Secretary of the Forest and Environment Department, State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel submits that as the mode and method of appointment",,,,

and joining has been done as per the various letters issued by the respondent themselves and the respondents have asked each of the petitioners to join,,,,

within the stipulated time frame with a clear stipulation that letter of appointment will be issued after they join, the petitioners cannot be put at a loss by",,,,

treating the issuance of date of appointment letter as the date of joining, although they have actually joined a couple of days prior to date of issuance of",,,,

appointment letters to the respective petitioners as per the instructions of the Respondents and mentioned in the offer letters for appointment. Learned,,,,

counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition is fit to be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside and the date",,,,

of joining of service by the petitioners be directed to be treated as date of appointment, although the appointment letter was issued after a couple of",,,,

days.,,,,

Arguments of the Respondents,,,,

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that with regards to all,,,,

similarly situated persons whose appointment letters were issued subsequently, it has been clarified by letter dated 02.08.2007(Annexure-2) and",,,,

decision has been taken to stop such situation in future which has happened in the case of David Angaria. Learned counsel submits that in view of the,,,,

letter dated 02.08.2007 which specifically deals with the case of David Angaria, the same benefit cannot be extended to the present petitioners as",,,,

such practice has been discontinued. However, it is not in dispute that so far as David Angaria is concerned, he has been granted benefit of A.C.P.",,,,

from the date of his joining and not from the date of issuance of his appointment letter which was issued subsequent to the date of his joining. Learned,,,,

counsel has also referred to Annexure-1 series to the writ petition to submit that initial letter dated 26.05.1980 which was issued to the petitioner no. 1,,,,

was only an offer of appointment and not the appointment letter and the appointment letter having been issued subsequently, his appointment cannot be",,,,

treated to be from the date of his joining pursuant to the offer of appointment. It is not in dispute that the case of each of the petitioners stand on,,,,

similar footing.,,,,

Point to be determined in this case,,,,

The point to be decided in the present case is,,,,

(a)whether the petitioners, who were made to join pursuant to their respective offer of appointment but their appointment letters were issued just a",,,,

few days after their date of joining, which also mentioned their date of joining , can be deprived of benefit of A.C.P. from the date of joining on the",,,,

basis of impugned letters subsequently issued discontinuing such long practice followed in the department for a number of years and directing to treat,,,,

the date of issuance of appointment letters as the date of joining?,,,,

(b)whether the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as has been admittedly extended to one similarly situated person, namely, David Angaria, but",,,,

in the impugned letters such benefit is being denied to others by stating that such practice of issuance of appointment letter after date of joining has to,,,,

be discontinued and therefore his case cannot be treated as a precedent?,,,,

Findings of this court,,,,

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that case of all the petitioners is on similar footing, in as much as their date of",,,,

joining is prior to the date of issuance of their respective appointment letters. The petitioners have given the chart at Paragraph 6 of the writ petition,,,,

mentioning about the date of joining and the date of issuance of appointment letter and also the claim of the petitioners for confirmation of first and,,,,

second A.C.P. The aforesaid details mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition is as follows: -,,,,

SI. No.,"Name of the petitioners and

Designation",Working Place,Date of Joining,"Appointment Letter and

Date

1,Ramdhyan Mishra (Assistant),Social Forestry Division,17.06.1980,O. O. No.-85 dt. 30.06.1980

2,Jagdish Narayan Verma (Head Clerk),Saranda Division Chaibasa,19.04.1973,O. O. No.-108 dt. 02.05.1973

3,Ashok Kumar Sinha (Assistant),Saranda State Trading Division,03.12.1982,O. O. No.-56 dt. 17.12.1982

4,Om Prakash Ambastha (Assistant),Chaibasa South Division,07.12.1978,O. O. No.-139 dt. 15.01.1979

5,Anjani Kumar Singh (Assistant),Gandhi Tola Chaibasa,02.04.1988,O. O. No.-62 dt. 07.05.1988

6,Nikunj Bihari Mahto (Assistant),Chaibasa South Division,20.01.1983,O. O. No.-15 dt. 22.02.1983

7,Jitendra Kumar (Assistant),Kolhan Division Chaibasa,19.10.1976,O. O. No.-213 dt. 16.11.1976

8,Md. Ilyas Ansari (Assistant),"D.F.O. Office Porahat Division

Chaibasa",03.06.1980,O. O. No.-86 dt. 04.07.1980

9,Shyam Lal Soy (Assistant),Gandhi Tola Chaibasa,02.04.1988,O. O. No.- 62 dt. 07.05.1988

10,Gopal Pan (Assistant),Chaibasa South Division,02.08.1988,O. O. No.-116 dt. 01.09.1988

11,Jamadar Oraon (Daftari),C.F. Southern Circle Chaibasa,14.08.1972,O. O. No.-221 dt. 16.08.1972

12,Binod Kumar Sinha (Mali),D.F.O. Porahat Division,01.04.1982,O. O. No.-79 dt. 24.06.1982

13,Degan Gope (Peon),C.F. Office Southern Circle,16.01.1982,O. O. No.-05 dt. 06.02.1982

Accordingly, the impugned letters as contained in Annexure-10 and 11 have no applicability, so far as the petitioners are concerned and it is held",,,,

that the date of joining of the petitioners is to be taken into consideration while calculating the period for grant of A.C.P as prayed for by the,,,,

petitioners. All necessary consequences to follow. The petitioners may file representation along with a web copy of this order before the Respondent,,,,

no. 3 who in turn is directed to ensure compliance of this order and also ensure payment of any amount if found payable to the petitioners pursuant to,,,,

this order within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioners may also mention their e- mail id in the representation,,,,

for better communication and also furnish their bank account details for receiving the payments, if any.",,,,

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.",,,,

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.",,,,

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed. as not pressed.",,,,