Utilizing Services Of Contractual Appointee From 2008 Is Practically Indistinguishable From An Appointment In A Permanent Post: Jharkhand HC Directs Regularisation Of Services
The Jharkhand High Court directed the regularisation of services of a contractual appointee holding that his services utilised since 2008 were “practically indistinguishable” from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk.
The Divison Bench set aside the decision of the Single Bench which denied relief to the contractual appointee (Appellant) on the ground that his contractual appointment did not fall under the purview of ‘irregular’ appointments eligible for regularisation.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed; the judgement of the learned Single Judge is set aside; and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the appellant as a Clerk at par with the persons regularized within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as he has undoubtedly completed 10 years of service.”
Advocate Indrajit Sinha appeared for the Appellant, while A.C. Aditya Kumar represented the Respondents.
The Appellant, initially appointed as a Computer Operator on a daily wage basis, was appointed on a contractual basis through a selection process in 2013. His services were regularly extended and by 2023, he had been working continuously for over 15 years in the Social Security Cell.
Despite meeting the qualifications and completing over ten years of service, the Appellant’s application for regularisation was unresolved.
The Division Bench noted that the Appellant had rendered continuous service since 2008 under various designations such as daily wage employee and contractual appointee. The Court observed that such nomenclature cannot be used to deny substantive rights accrued through continous service over a considerable period.
“The continuous service of the employees in the capacities of regular employees performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement,” the Bench remarked.
The Court observed that “utilizing the services of the appellant from 2008 (though under nomenclature of a ‘daily wage’ employee initially and later from 2013 as a ‘contractual appointee’, which appointment was infact done through a selection process adopted by the State with the Deputy Commissioner as the head of the Interview Committee), is practically indistinguishable from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk who is also engaged in doing typing on computer and data entry.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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 is however declined since only after regularization of his service by the respondents, can it be counted for such benefits…We also hold that the appellant is 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.”
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Indrajit Sinha and Ankit Vishal
Respondents: A.C. Aditya Kumar
