Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S)(Filling) No.8119 of 2025
-------
Ranjit Kumar & Ors. ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents With W.P.(S)(Filling) No.8129 of 2025
-------
Sumit Kumar Mishra & Ors. ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents With W.P.(S) No.3994 of 2025
-------
Nileshranjan Kumar Singh & Ors. ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents With W.P.(S) No.3996 of 2025
-------
Sunil Kumar & Ors. ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents With W.P.(S) No.3997 of 2025
-------
Ravi Shankar Kumar & Ors. ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ....Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.
: Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv.
For the Res. State : Mr. Shahabuddin, SC-VII
-------
1 03/Dated:30.07.2025
1. Let all these matters be tagged together for joint hearing as the issue is identical.
2. The grievance of the respective petitioners in all these writ applications is that they are contractual employee. However, they have been transferred vide several orders impugned in the respective writ applications.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no service rules govern the temporary employees in the State of Jharkhand. Under settled principles of service jurisprudence, any transfer or condition of service must be regulated by established service conditions. Accordingly, the impugned transfer orders are legally unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal 222, Para-9, wherein Calcutta High Court observed as under:-
"............unless the petitioner is in a permanent post the petitioner cannot be transferred even if the proposition that transfer is an incidence of a public service or that the authority empowered to appoint is also authorized to transfer is accepted..........". 2
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State seeks time to file a counter affidavit and submits that from perusal of the Office Orders pertaining to the petitioners reveals that they are not being transferred. The terms 'transfer', 'Sthanantaran', (स्थानाांतरण) or 'Partiniyukti' (पाररतततनयतु ि) have not been used in the said orders. Furthermore, since the petitioners are contractual employees, they do not possess enforceable rights under the Constitution of India with regard to transfer.
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners again invites the attention of this Court to the impugned orders and submits that although the terms 'transfer', 'Sthanantaran' (स्थानातां रण), or 'Partiniyukti' (पाररतततनयतु ि) have not been expressly used therein, but a bare reading reveals that the petitioners have in fact been relocated to different Circles within the same Division, and admittedly, to separate districts. Such administrative action amounts to a transfer in substance. It is further reiterated that, in the absence of any governing service rules, the impugned orders are legally unsustainable."
6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and in view of the respondent's prayer for time to file a counter affidavit, let these cases be listed on 21.08.2025. 3
7. In the meantime, looking to the nature of the impugned order and urgency of the case, respective impugned order dated 15.07.2025 (Annexure-12), in W.P.(S) (Filing) No. 8119/25, W.P.(S) (Filing) No. 8129/25, W.P.(S) No. 3996/25 and W.P.(S) No. 3997/25, and impugned order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure12) in W.P.(S) No.3994/25 shall remain stayed till further order.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-
4