RANCHI, India, Sept. 9 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 8:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs; (a)The illegal orders of the respondents No. 2 and 3 a s contained in Memo No. 448/Stha. Hazaribag dated 17.03.2017 {date wrongly typed as 17.03.2016} and Mem NO. 270/Ji.Gra. Ramgarh dated 23.03.2017 [Annexure-7 &7/1] respectively read with Anneuxre6/1] whereby the contractual appointment of the petitioner (Annexure-1) has been illegally cancelled with retrospective date of 28.01.2017 merely on the ground that the petitioner was allegedly found involved by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hazaribag (Annexure-3&9) in a completely false and fabricated case (Annexure-2,4 Series, 5 Series & 8).

(ii) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the concerned Respondents: -

(a) To pay the amount of subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of his judicial custody from 28.01.2017 to 24.04.2017.

(b)To treat the petitioner in the service of the State Government and also on the pay Rolls from 03.05.2017 onwards (Annexure-10 series) and also to allow him to resume his duties forthwith (Annexure-11 series, 12 and 13 series) subject to the final outcome of the A.C.B. P.S. Hazaribagh Case No. 01/2017.

(c)To pay the cost of litigation for unnecessarily harassing the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the Petitioner was a contractual employee of the State Government and was taken into custody on 27.01.2017 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hazaribag. While he was in the judicial custody, his contractual services were straightway terminated without even a show cause vide order dated 17.03.2017 with retrospective effect from 28.01.2017 merely on the ground of the alleged involved in the said ACB Case.

4. The case of the petitioner is that, on the one hand; he has been terminated without following principles of natural justice; and on the other hand, the other similarly situated contractual employees of the State Government were allowed to continue in the service of the State subject to the final-outcome of the respective cases against them. The Petitioner filed several representations to treat his case at par with other similarly situated persons after his release from the judicial custody, but all in vain. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has filed the present writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inspector of Police ACB requested Deputy Development Commissioner to furnish information to the effect that whether the work of making TIN number online was under the control of Petitioner; to which it was replied by memo dated 08.03.2017 which makes it crystal clear that the said vigilance case was not related to the duties and functions attached to the post of the Petitioner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=rC8SUFuyEFsvB5V61cXUrCHmCG0aF44dAzY8ZYDjfmARukCfmS9C36VBFWlKDjm%2B&caseno=WPC/912/2018&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010056112018&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.