Jharkhand High Court: In a letter patents appeal challenging the judgment dated 23-04-2024 passed by the Single Judge, the Division Judge Bench of M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ and Deepak Roshan, J., stated that utilizing the services of the appellant from 2008 was practically indistinguishable from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk who was also engaged in doing typing on computer and data entry. Therefore, the Court set aside the decision of the Single Judge, and the respondents were directed to regularize the services of the appellant as a Clerk at par with the persons regularized on 22-07-2022 within three months, as he has undoubtedly completed 10 years of service as on 20-6-2019.
Background
On 25-01-2008, the appellant was appointed on daily wage as Computer Operator in Social Security Cell, Giridih from 01-01-2008 to 31-03-2008, and his services were extended from time to time. On 19-01-2013, an advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Computer Operator cum Clerk on contractual basis. As the appellant possessed the requisite qualification, the appellant applied for the said post, and he was selected on 31-01-2013. Though the appellant’s appointment was for one year on contractual basis with a condition for its extension if required. Admittedly, the appellant was working continuously since then.
As per the appellant, in view of the notification dated 20-06-2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Official Language, and an amendment to the Jharkhand Sarkar Ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup Se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo Ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 (‘the Rules’), the office of the Deputy Commissioner (District Social Security Treasury), Giridih issued a letter directing Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to take immediate action on the regularization of those employees who have completed 10 years of continuous service till 20-06-2019. As per the appellant, an application for regularization was also received and submitted by him. However, no decision was communicated to him.
Thereafter, an order was passed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Giridih extending the contractual service of the appellant from 01-04-2019 to 31-03-2020. Thereafter, again the appellant’s services were extended from 01-04-2021 to 31-03-2022 by the order dated 31-07-2021. Even thereafter, his services were extended from 1-4-2022 to 31-03-2023.
The appellant filed the petition seeking regularization of his services on the ground that he had been continuously working as Computer Operator for more than ten years and to absorb him on the sanctioned post of Accounts Clerk. The Single Judge vide the judgment dated 23-04-2024 held that the scheme for regularization was not applicable for contractual appointments as the contractual appointments were not ‘irregular’ appointments. The appellant also held that the appellant could not claim that he had worked continuously from 25-1-2008 since his appointment on daily wages ended once he was taken into employment on contractual basis. Thus, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that it was shocking that even after the decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, mandating regular appointments, the appellant was appointed on daily wage on 25-01-2008 for the period 01-01-2008 to 31-03-2008 as a Computer Operator in the Social Security Cell, Giridih. The Court stated that in violation of the constitutional mandate to make appointment on regular basis, the State of Jharkhand appointed the appellant on daily wage basis and subsequently, on contractual basis and were utilizing the services of the appellant. There was no valid explanation for the same.
The Court observed that the notification issued by the State to regularize the services of persons irregularly appointed and who had completed ten years of service, and the benefit had been given by the State on 22-07-2022 to certain Computer Operators. The Court observed that out of nine people whose services were regularised, one had been appointed regularly as Computer Operator cum Data Entry Operator and the rest were appointed without any designation but were made to do computer related works including typing. The Court stated that despite the same, the services of the said persons were regularized by the State on the post of Clerk. There was no explanation for this action by the respondents and the appellant could not be discriminated against in this manner by them.
The Court stated that the Single Judge had erred in holding that the scheme of regularization framed by the State in 2015 would not apply in the case the appellant because he had been appointed on contractual basis. This was because even the contractual appointment had not been contemplated in the Service Rules and only regular appointment ought to have been made.
The Court also stated that the views expressed by the Single Judge that the appellant had not worked continuously from 25-01-2008 was also erroneous because the respondents had utilized the services of the appellant continuously, till date without any break giving different descriptions of his job daily wages for some time and later as contractual appointment.
The Court relied on Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 327 and stated that utilizing the services of the appellant from 2008 was practically indistinguishable from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk who was also engaged in doing typing on computer and data entry. Therefore, the Court set aside the decision of the Single Judge and the respondents were directed to regularize the services of the appellant as a Clerk at par with the persons regularized on 22-07-2022 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as he has undoubtedly completed 10 years of service as on 20-6-2019 as per the Rules.
However, the Court declined the relief sought for by the appellant to consider the period from the date of his initial appointment for computation of all benefits including retiral benefits, since only after regularization of his service by the respondents, can it be counted for such benefits. The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to remuneration/benefits at par with that given to regular employees working on the post of Accounts Clerk for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.
[Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 4051, decided on 19-11-2024]
*Judgment authored by — Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Ankit Vishal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.
