Shiv Shankar Ram vs Union Of India And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Heard Mr. Laxman Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“A. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/, direction(s) to the respondents for regularization of the services of the petitioners under the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF)/Respondents on the ground that they are still working as Cook and as a Water Carrier wef 23/2/95 and 18/9/98 respectively, although the other similarly situated persons have been given permanent employment, working with the petitioners. B. For quashing of order dated 27/8/09 passed by the respondent, wherein representation of the petitioners rejected.

(prayer no. B was deleted vide order dated 06.04.2022)

C. For declaration that breaking of the services of the petitioners after 89 days is illegal, although work taken by the respondents are permanent in nature.

D. Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

From the records of this case, it appears that the petitioners had earlier moved this Court by filing writ petitions. Petitioner no. 1 had filed CWJC No. 3957 of 1999 (R) and petitioner no. 2 had filed C.W.J.C. No. 3927 of 1999(R) against common order of termination dated 08.09.1999 which were disposed of with a direction to reinstate the petitioners and pay wages total of which in a month comes equal to the minimum of the scale permitted for the post against which the petitioners were appointed plus admissible allowances as allowed by the Union of India from time to time. It was ordered that in the matter of regular appointment, the petitioners be also given preference over the outsiders. The orders passed by the writ court were challenged in L.P.A. No. 512 of 2001 and other analogous cases which were dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2002 observing that the employees shall continue to be employed on the same terms and if the authorities contemplate filling up of vacancies on regular basis in the matter of regular appointment, the writ petitioners shall be given preference because of their experience. It was also ordered that if any writ petitioner had crossed the age bar, the authority may consider sympathetically his case for grant of age bar relaxation. The order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 512 of 2001 and other analogous cases has been annexed along with the writ petition.

It further appears that the petitioners again moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4295 of 2009 seeking a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners and a prayer was also made to quash the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Principal/Commandant, CTC (T&IT), CRPF, Ranchi, Jharkhand by which the claim of the petitioners for their regularization was rejected. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgement dated 31.08.2017 and so far as the payment of wages are concerned, it was directed to ensure that the petitioners are paid their salaries on regular basis strictly in terms of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.

Now, the petitioners have again moved this Court for regularization of their services.

This Court finds that the claim for regularization of the services of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent authority vide order dated 27.08.2009 which was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 4295 of 2009 and such relief was declined vide order dated 31.08.2017. This Court also finds that no subsequent development has been brought on record entitling the petitioners to claim regularization. In such circumstances, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners in this writ petition, can be granted. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

However, the observations which were made by this Court in earlier round of litigation will still continue to bind the parties.