AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia and D.P. Singh, JJ.—These two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the common order dated 6.3.2002 allowing the writ petitions-CWJC Nos. 2168 and 2223 of 2001 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Ram Bilash Singh Mehta and others (Petitioners in CWJC No. 2223 of 2001) filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 12085 of 1992 for their regularisation, which was disposed of on 15.2.1996 with a direction to the State Government to consider their case of absorption against the existing vacancies.
Birendra Kumar Pandey, (Petitioner in CWJC No. 2168 of 2001) also preferred a writ petition being CWJC No. 3495 of 1998 (R) "or his regularisation which was disposed of on 27.11.1999, directing the respondents to fill up the posts, if any, in accordance with law and the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons be considered on the basis of the guidelines issued by the State Government, within six months.
In another writ petition-CWJC No. 6566 of 1998 (Baidya Nath Sah and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), the matter was remitted to consider the cases of regularisation against vacant Class IV posts.
The case of the writ petitioners is that as a counter blast to the said orders, they were terminated.
By order dated 8.5.2001 (Annexure 1 to the appeals), the services of the menial workers were dispensed with on the ground that there was no work for them after closure/shifting of Battalions in question. This order was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing the two writ petitions in question.
Learned Single Judge observed that in the earlier writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 3495 of 1998 (R), such defence le. the services were no more required, was not taken. He opened that removal of the writ petitioners was prima facie counter blast to the order passed in the said writ petition. The writ petition was allowed, the Impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the concerned respondents to consider the claim of regularisation or in the event of regular appointment to consider their case in the light of the order dated 27.11.1999 passed in CWJC No. 3498 of 1998 (R).
Mrs. Sheela Prasad, appearing for the State-respondents submitted that there was no sanctioned post of menials (Class IV posts) in the Battalion. The writ petitioners worked on daily wages for managing the affairs of the Battalion. Some of the Home Guards volunteered to do the work which was being done by the writ petitioners. The activities of the Special Battalion Chandawara at Hazaribagh were completely stopped and in view of the changed circumstances, the services of all the menial employees were dispensed with by order 8.5.2001. She further submitted that in this situation, the ''earlier orders relied on by the writ petitioners were of no help to them. She further submitted that the said decision dated 8.5.2001 was taken after about one and half year by which the services of all such employees were dispensed with. This order was not passed only against the writ petitioners. In this situation, it cannot be said that this order was counter blast to the orders passed In earlier writ petition.
She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahendra L. Jain and Ors. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. (2005) I LLJ 578 SC , especially paragraphs 38 and 39 wherein it is held that the persons appointed as daily-wagers hold no posts. They do not acquire any vested right to continue after the project is over. She also relied in Binod Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahato and Ors. : AIR2005SC2103 and submitted that the writ petitioners cannot claim regulation merely because they were working for a long time.
Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the appeals, submitted that issuance of the impugned letter dated 8.5.2001 establishes the right of the writ petitioners on the posts in question, inasmuch as if they were not validly appointed, there was no question of dispensing with their services. Learned counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh and Another and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, , Shiv Shankar Sah Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, , and Nawal Kishore Vidarthi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2003 (2) JLJR 198, with regard to regularisation of work charge employees.
The question which falls for our consideration in this case is whether the respondents can be directed to regularise the writ petitioners, even if there is no work, on the basis of the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners?
In our opinion, the directions to consider the claims of regularisation did not prevent the respondents to dispense with the services of all such employees including the writ petitioners if such services were no more required. It was clearly stated in the counter affidavits filed in the writ petitions that some of the Home Guards offered to do the work which was being performed by the writ petitioners. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances noticed above, no direction can be issued to the respondents for regulation of writ petitioners on the basis of the orders passed in earlier writ petitions, in view of the stand of the appellant that such services were no more required.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 6.3.2002 passed in CWJC Nos. 2168 and 2223 of 2001 is set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed and the order dated 8.5.2001 (Annexure 1) is held to be justified. However, there will be no order as to costs.