Blog

Writ petition seeking directions from the respondents to confirm Assured Career Progression disposed of -Jharkhand high court

A writ petition was filed by  13 appellants together seeking a direction upon the respondents to confirm Assured Career Progression to petitioner from the date of joining for the department of forest department employees. further prayer has been made to quash the letters dated 656 dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure-10) as well as letter No. 639 dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-11) in which it was said that the date of joining before the issue of appointment letter is not proper and the appointment will be considered from the date of joining. The present is heard and disposed of by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY in the case of Ramdhyan Mishra and 12 Ors. VERSUS The State of Jharkhand and 7 Ors ( W.P. (S) No. 3943 of 2010)

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of all 13 petitioners submits that the letter dated 26.05.1980 was issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to join by 20.06.1980 with clear directions that if the petitioner does not join by 20.06.1980 offer of appointment will stand canceled and the letter of appointment was issued after the date of joining. The similar is the case in all other petitioners in the present writ petition. The counsel further submits that on similar person mentioned in the writ petition named David Angaria was issued a letter of appointment before the date of joining and the facts are similar in a similar situation and the petitioner is praying for similar reliefs. the counsel further submits that a time frame is provided to the petitioner to join within it but the method is putting the petitioners at a loss as the issuance of date of appointment letter as the date of joining, although the employees have joined a couple of days before date of issuance of appointment letters to the respective petitioners as per the instructions of the Respondents and mentioned in the offer letters for an appointment. the counsel further requests that the present writ petition is fit to be allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the date of joining of service by the petitioners be directed to be treated as the date of appointment.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a special letter was issued in the case of David Angaria and the same benefit cannot be extended to the present petitioners as such practice has been discontinued. And the petitioner in the present case cannot be on the same footing.

The learned court after hearing both the parties decides that in the present case all the petitioners are on a similar footing and this court finds that the aforesaid method of joining and subsequent issuance of appointment letter, clearly mentioned in the prior date of joining, has been followed by the respondent department for a very long time and petitioners are certainly not responsible for the acts and omissions of the respondent department and it is not in dispute that the respondents have taken work from the petitioners right from their date of joining and not from the date of issuance of appointment letters. And the similar benefit as david Angaria cannot be provided to the other petitioners and accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma