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
-------
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
-------
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..........".
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.
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/-
