Bhola Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Bhola Singh and ors. vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 07, 2007

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518365

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518365
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.
Decided On: Aug 07, 2007
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhola Singh and ors.

Advocate Mr. Bibhuti Pandey

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Chetlal Sao v. State of Bihar
Reported In: [2007(4)JCR151(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........of patna high court in chetlal sao v. state of bihar 1986 pljr 149.5. the relevant concluding portion of the full bench judgment of ram prasad singh (supra) reads as follow:17(i) the work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment.but the work-charged employees working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled....6. under the facts and circumstances noticed above, it has to be held that the petitioners have no existing right of consideration for regularisation on the basis of the said full bench judgment of ram prasad singh (supra). petitioners are not in continuous service. they were removed from work charge establishment from march 2002 and thereafter they are not working. their engagement was no more required. they were paid their dues for the period they worked. further the aforesaid documents relied by mr. pandey are of no help to the petitioners. annexure-a issued by the executive engineer, devendra prasad singh, contradicts other documents-an-nexures-10, 11 and 12 issued by him. further annexures-b series to the affidavit dated 4.7.2007 and annexures-a, b and c series to the affidavit filed on 20.7.2207 on behalf of the respondents clearly shows that annexures-10, 11 and 12 are incorrect.7. in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties finally.

2. The petitioners claim that they have a right to be considered for regularisation on the ground that they are working under work charged establishment continuously without any break; and. for payment of wages from March, 2002.

3. Mr. Bibhuti Pandey. learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are still working under the work-charged establishment. He relied on a statement signed on 24.2.2006 (Annexure-10) by one Shri Devendra Prasad Singh, the then Executive Engineer and the Letter No. 274 dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure-11) issued by the same officer along with the statements (Annexure-12). He submitted that the said Letter No. 274 dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure-11) was in reply to the letter dated 26.4.2007 of the Deputy Secretary and the letter dated 24.4.2007 of the Chief Engineer. He further submitted that when the petitioners relied on the said documents, the respondents are saying that the said letters were issued wrongly by the said officer Shri Devendra Prasad Singh. Relying on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2005 (3) JCR 9 (FB) : 2005 (3) JLJR 38, he submitted that petitioners should be considered for regularisation.

4. Mr. M.S. Akhtar, learned standing Counsel No. II, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that petitioners were engaged temporarily as and when required and it has been specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that they have been removed from work charge duty from March 2002. Their employment is no longer required. Annexure-10 is simply a chart showing the names of the petitioners and their date of joining and there is nothing therein to show that they were working on the day when the said chart was signed. He further referred to Annexure-A dated 20.6.2007 which is a certificate issued by the same officer Shri Devendra Prasad Singh saying that due to pressure of work, the concerned Assistant got his signature on the said chart dated 24.2.2006 which should be treated as cancelled. He further relied on the certificate issued by Shri Prashant Deo, the then Executive Engineer to show that the petitioners were removed from work from March 2002 and thereafter they have not worked (Annexure-B). He-submitted that when verification was made about the correctness of the statements made by the petitioners in the affidavits filed in this writ petition, it was found that the same were not correct and, therefore, the said certificates (Annexures-A and B) had to be annexed in support of the contention of the respondents with the affidavit dated 4.7.2007. Mr. Akhtar further relied on Annexures-B Series annexed with the said affidavit and Annexures-A, B and C Series filed with the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 20.7.2007. He further submitted that it appears that the petitioners, in order to make out a case that they have been working till date without any break, have tried to procure Annexuresr-10, 11 and 12 from the said Shri Devendra Prasad Singh, the then Executive Engineer, which are incorrect and the State is not bound to act pursuant to the said letters/statement. He referred to paragraph 22 of the Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Chetlal Sao v. State of Bihar 1986 PLJR 149.

5. The relevant concluding portion of the Full Bench judgment of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) reads as follow:

17(i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment.

But the work-charged employees working on daily wages, not holding any post, are not so entitled....

6. Under the facts and circumstances noticed above, it has to be held that the petitioners have no existing right of consideration for regularisation on the basis of the said Full Bench judgment of Ram Prasad Singh (supra). Petitioners are not in continuous service. They were removed from work charge establishment from March 2002 and thereafter they are not working. Their engagement was no more required. They were paid their dues for the period they worked. Further the aforesaid documents relied by Mr. Pandey are of no help to the petitioners. Annexure-A issued by the Executive Engineer, Devendra Prasad Singh, contradicts other documents-An-nexures-10, 11 and 12 issued by him. Further Annexures-B Series to the affidavit dated 4.7.2007 and Annexures-A, B and C Series to the affidavit filed on 20.7.2207 on behalf of the respondents clearly shows that Annexures-10, 11 and 12 are incorrect.

7. In my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2007 Same Parties Bhola Singh and ors. vs State of Jharkhand and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.

Service