RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has held that a citizen cannot be subjected to adverse consequences merely for approaching a court to seek protection of their legal or constitutional rights, observing that retaliatory action against a litigant strikes at the rule of law.
The court of Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a petition filed by contractual employees of the Jharkhand Government who challenged the rejection of their claims for regularisation and their subsequent disengagement from service.
The matter is related to the regularisation and subsequent disengagement of contractual employees working in the Engineering Cell of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare. The petitioners had been appointed as clerks, typists, coordinators, drivers and pump operators and claimed to have worked continuously for more than 10 years, with their contracts being extended periodically.
The employees had earlier approached the High Court seeking regularisation. In W.P.(S) No. 4790/2016, the Court had directed the authorities to consider their claim. After the claim was rejected, they filed W.P.(S) No. 1021/2020. On January 15, 2024, the High Court again directed the authorities to reconsider the matter.
However, on August 14, 2024, the Building Construction Department rejected their claim, stating that the appointments had not been made against sanctioned posts, lacked approval from the competent authority and did not follow the prescribed procedure.
The High Court found these contentions inconsistent with the State's own records. It noted that the departmental file recorded the Principal Secretary's approval, while a letter dated April 28, 2016, issued by the Chief Engineer indicated that the employees were working against sanctioned posts.
The Court also noted that no formal order or show-cause notice had been issued before their removal. Instead, they were disengaged shortly after pursuing the earlier court proceedings.
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jaggo vs Union of India, the High Court observed that a citizen cannot be subjected to adverse consequences merely for approaching a court to seek protection of their rights. It held that approaching the court is a constitutional right and that retaliatory action for exercising that right strikes at the rule of law.
“No Citizen can be visited with adverse consequences merely for having approached a Court of Law for protection of his/her Constitutional rights. The rights to move a Court is itself a Constitutional right, and any action taken by way of reprisal against a citizen for having invoked such right strikes at the very root of rule of law,” stated the court order. Disengaging from services without any show-cause or formal order on the consequences that employee had knocked at the door of the Court is certainly illegal, it added.
The Court accordingly directed the authorities to reinstate the contractual employees, subject to the terms and conditions applicable to their engagement.
“Having regards to the fact that the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years and their work cannot be said to be temporary in nature; rather perennial and one of the most important works in the office, thus, this Court is of the firm view that it is necessary to regularize the services of the petitioners,” stated the court order.