[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shyamal Dutta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:38112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3293 of 2021
------
1. Shyamal Dutta, son of Sri Subash Dutta, resident of Mohalla
Hindpiri, P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, Town and District Ranchi.
2. Shyam Sundar Sinku, son of Gopi Nath Sinkum, resident of
Village Dungi, P.O. & P.S. Dungi, District West Singhbhum.
3. Gopal Tirkey, son of Sukhram Tirkey, resident of Village Duisud
Banhora, P.O. & P.S. Hehal, District Ranchi.
4. Dilip Prajapati, son of Nageshwar Prajapati, resident of Mohalla
Salaiya, P.O. & P.S. Muffasil, District Hazaribagh.
5. Sanjay Kumar Sah, son of Nagendra Sah, resident of near
Hanuman Mandir, Badhai Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeonagar,
District Ranchi.
6. Pradeep Kumar Tigga, son of Boar Tigga, resident of Village
Tetra, P.O. Konbir, Notoli, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla.
7. Teju Bhagat, son of Faguwa Bhagat, resident of Tigra Nawa Toli
(Baseer Toli), P.O. & P.S. Guru, District Ranchi.
8. Timothy Lakra, son of Daniel Lakra, resident of Peace Road,
P.O., G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
9. Ramesh Mahli, son of Budhram Mahli, resident of Village
Palandu, P.S. Rajaulatu, P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
10. Budhram Bhagat, son of Mangra Bhagat, resident of Lupunga
sons, P.O. & P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi.
11. Shikha Toppo, daughter of Kali Toppo, resident of Purani Ranchi,
P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
12. Basant Kumar Sahu, son of Raj Kishor Sahu, resident of Village
Kullu, P.S. Beyasi, P.S. Harakopi, Chanho, District Ranchi.
13. Pramod Lakra, son of Bisu Lakra, resident of Mohalla Sarna Toli,
near Ranchi College, 35/A, P.O. Hatma, P.S. Ranchi University,
District Ranchi.
14. James Ravikant Lakra, son of Bruno Lakra, resident of Hawai
Nagar, Road No.9, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi.
15. Subodh Kumar Bhagat, son of Rama Ram Bhagat, resident of
Mohalla Sindwar Toli, New Area Morabadi, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi,
District Ranchi.
16. Pawan Hitkar Runda, son of Alois Runda, resident of Kanta Toli,
Purlia Road, Chandni Colony, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District
Ranchi.
17. Santoshi Kachhap, daughter of Michael Kachhap, resident of
Village Bargawa Patra Toli, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
18. Saraswati Sandil, daughter of Pancha Sandil, resident of Village
Sidraul, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
19. Dolly Kumari Roy, daughter of Anil Prasad, resident of Mohalla
Shaket Nagar, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal
Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having
office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and
District Ranchi.
1
2025:JHHC:38112
2. Jharkhand Academic Council, through its Chairman, having
office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Bargawan,
District Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, having office at
Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Bargawan, District
Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Sudha Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kr. Pathak, Advocate
------
JUDGMENT
CAV on : 08/12/2025 Pronounced on : 19/12/2025
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
the following reliefs :-
"(i) To direct the respondents, in particular
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to regularise the services of
the petitioners, as all the petitioners are working
under respondent no.2 for last much more than ten
years.
(ii) To also direct the respondents in particular
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to extend the benefits of
regular employees to the petitioners, such as
minimum basic pay, dearness allowance, house rent
allowance, conveyance allowance, medical
allowance, provident fund and all other admissible
benefits including 7th pay revision, which are being
paid to 47 Daily Wagers and 10 Security Guards, as
also 02 Drivers, posted in Jharkhand Academic
Council (respondent no.2)."
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
2025:JHHC:38112
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
3.1 Pursuant to decision dated 26.06.2006 of the Jharkhand
Academic Council (JAC), Ranchi, the JAC had issued an
Advertisement being Advertisement No.68/2006, under the
signature of the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Hawainagar,
Birsadih, Ranchi, inviting the eligible candidates for seasonal
appointment on daily wages in Class-III posts, in different categories
on different dates, through Walk-in-Interview.
3.2. The petitioners vied for the aforesaid Walk-in-Interview
and claim that they were appointed on different dates, thus they
accordingly tendered their joining on their respective posts.
3.3. Vide Annexure-2 (series), the appointment of petitioner
No.-1 got accepted by the Chairman, JAC and got approved in the
next meeting dated 31.08.2006, and the entry to that effect was
made in the file. Similarly, entry with respect to the appointment had
been made for petitioner Nos.9, 11 and 13.
3.4. The petitioners in this writ petition have claimed parity
with 47 plus 12 persons who have been appointed in the same mode
as that of these petitioners and later they have been regularized and
accordingly have been extended the benefits granted to regular
employees. The details of benefits granted to those 47 plus 12
persons as given in this writ petition are as follows:-
(i) The basic pay plus dearness allowance to the 47 Daily Wagers
of different categories, posted in the Jharkhand Intermediate
Education Council, have been approved vide Office Order as
contained in Memo No.JIEC/SECY/0050-2002 Ranchi, dated
2025:JHHC:38112
07.01.2002, issued under the signature of Secretary,
Jharkhand Intermediate Education Council.
(ii) The Jharkhand Academic Council in its meeting held on
16.12.2004, approved extension of benefits to the Daily Wage
employees such as house rent allowance, conveyance
allowance, medical allowance etc., and in the light of the
aforesaid decision, an Office Order as contained in Memo
No.JAC/OSD/0497/04 Ranchi, dated 16.12.2004, was issued.
(iii) Similarly, vide Office Order as contained in Memo
Nos.JAC/403/06 dated 11.02.2006, the benefits of leave
encashment and medical allowance were extended to those
persons who have completed ten years of service and their
service books were also opened.
(iv) Further, vide Office Order as contained in Memo No.
JAC/995/06 dated 02.06.2006, the benefits of regular
employees were extended to 10 Security Guards and 02
Drivers.
(v) The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, wrote a
letter dated 27.09.2008 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) to the
Accountant General (Audit) Jharkhand, (Local Audit Wing),
Ranchi, with regard to irregularities in engagement of Daily
Wages staff recruited between 2006-07. In the said letter, after
discussing about the publication of aforesaid Advertisement
and Walk-in-Interview of these petitioners, provisions of Article
13(4) of JAC Act (200), allocation of fund in the Budget (2006-
07), had concluded that no irregularities were done in
2025:JHHC:38112
engagement of Daily Wages Workers.
(vi) Vide Office Orders as contained in Memo Nos.JAC/5250/08
Ranchi, dated 20.11.2008 and JAC/1413/16/ Ranchi, dated
31.03.2016, benefit of ACP has been extended to 43 daily
wagers on completion of their twelve years of service.
3.5. It is the case of the petitioners that they filed numerous
representations for regularisation or even for extension of similar
benefits as the regular employees, as has been extended to 47 plus
12 similarly situated persons, but in vain. One of such
representations dated 10.07.2020 written before the Chairman,
Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, has been brought on record in
this writ petition as Annexure-13. Now, they moved before this
Court.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted
that the cases of the petitioners stand on a better footing than those
47 plus 12 persons as they have been appointed pursuant to the
Advertisement, followed by Walk-in-Interview and after following due
process and having worked for more than ten years, hence these
petitioners are also entitled for regularization in their services with
benefits thereof. He submitted that the action of the respondent
Authorities in not considering the case of the petitioners is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He refers
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om
Prakash Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in
(2023) 20 SCC 93.
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submitted
2025:JHHC:38112
that the petitioners had not been appointed on sanctioned and vacant
post, rather they were on contractual appointment, for which
remuneration is payable on daily wage basis. He submits that the
initial basic pay and dearness allowance that was paid to 47 daily
wagers was sanctioned. He placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. High
Court of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, and Joshi
Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India reported in
(2015) 7 SCC 728.
6. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioners, the petitioners have brought to notice a similar writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.2122 of 2020, which is pending before this
Court, wherein the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition, the
JAC has admitted that there are total 352 posts sanctioned in the
JAC by the Memo No.331 dated 28.01.2009.
7. After hearing the parties and going through the materials
available on record, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioners
are working for nearly two decades and the work performed by them
can be said to be perennial in nature. The case of the petitioners is
that the nature of job being discharged by them is not only equal to
those 47 plus 12 persons, rather more onerous than the nature of
job which was being discharged by them. Further, as per the
petitioners, similarly situated person have already been regularized
by the respondents.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and the submission made,
I direct the petitioners to file a fresh individual representation along
2025:JHHC:38112
with all the relevant documents in their favour, before respondent
No.3 - Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, within four
weeks.
9. On receipt of such representation, the respondent No.3
will consider the case of the petitioners and will decide the claim
within a period of six weeks, as per law.
10. If the petitioners are found entitled to any benefit, their
case for regularization and other service benefits, must be
considered within four weeks thereafter.
11. If any part of the claim / representations is rejected, a
reasoned order should be communicated to the petitioners.
12. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
13. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.12979 of
2025, also stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 19/12/2025
Prashant
NAFR
Uploaded on 19.12.2025
