WRIT PETITION 4990 of 2005 on 1 September 1985

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi

3. The Chief Engineer, High Way, Road Division,

4. The Superintendent Engineer, National Highway Circle, Dhanbad

5. The Executive Engineer, National Highway, Sub-Division no. 2, Dhanbad

6. Awar Pramandal, (S.D.O), National Highway No. 2, Chas, Bokaro, Nirikshan Bhawan ……Respondents Bhawan ……Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

CORAM:

--------- : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate : J.C. to S.C. III

For the Petitioner For the Respondents 12/Dated: 12[th]February, 2015

The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondent authority to reinstate him in service.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 01.09.1985 but the respondent authority removed the petitioner from service on the ground that he has been appointed after cutoff date i.e. 01.08.1985. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed under the work charge post and salary has also been released in his favour.

The further ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by referring to the supplementary counter affidavit that two persons have been regularized in service, one however was on 26.4.2002 and consequently the other also by the Work Establishment.

The submission has been by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on Work Charge post on 01.09.1985 and as such the case ought to have been considered by the respondent authority.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner was appointed on 01.09.1985 and in that view of the matter the action shall be taken by the respondent authority, as it is evident from supplementary counter affidavit wherein statement has been made that, one of the employee who was working under the Work Establishment being appointed on 01.11.1985 has been regularized under the Regular Establishment and as such in view of above submission the case of the petitioner may be considered.

In view of the facts as stated hereinabove, the matter is remanded before the authorities for taking decision in this regard as to whether the petitioner has worked in the Work Establishment or not and if worked under the Work Charge Establishment, the respondent no. 3 shall take decision within eight Tarun weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In view of the submission of both parties and without going into the merit of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)