Jharkhand High Court

)Dhani Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                       2025:JHHC:35144




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P.(S) No. 3021 of 2018
                      With
                         I.A.No.2964 of 2024
                                   ---

1)Dhani Mahto, Aged about-50 years, Son of Late Jogi Mahto, Resident of Village Gari Khurd, P.O. Garikala, P.S Keredari, District-Hazaribagh

2) Vijay Kumar Singh, Aged about 46 years, son of Late Sarju Prasad Singh Resident of Village Majhganwa, P.0. Manjhganwa, P.S. Mayurahand, District-Chatra.

3)Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Singh, Aged about-32 years,Son of Late Rameshwar Singh, Resident of Village Jamira, P.O. Hewai, P.S. Keredari, District Hazaribagh

4) Amrendra Kumar Singh, Aged about 36 years, Son of Sri Janarndhan Singh, Resident of Suresh colony, Ward no.11, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh at present sarodaya colony, near P.W.D Road office, Hazaribagh P.O-Hazaribagh P.S-Sadar, District Hazaribagh. .......Petitioners Versus

1. State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative and Rajbahasa Department, Project Building P.Ο & P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

2.Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Project Building P.O & P.S. Dhurwa. District-Ranchi.

3. Hazaribagh Municipality, Hazaribagh, P.O & P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh

4. Chief Executive Officer, Hazaribagh Municipality, Hazaribagh,P.O& P.S. Sadar, District- Hazaribagh

5. Kumar Rajiv Ranjan s/o Shatrughan Prasad resident of julu park, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh

6. Shailendra kumar s/o not known P.O & P.S District Hazaribagh.

7. Vijay Kumar s/o Sri Sudhansu Kumar resident of P.O and P.S and District Hazaribagh. ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: M/s. Ranjit Kumar, Prabhat Kumar, Advocates

---

C.A.V ON. 02.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 25/11/2025

The instant writ application has been preferred by the

Petitioners for the following reliefs:-

i) For a direction upon the respondents, particularly respondent no.4 to give them similar treatment as has been given to respondents no. 5,6 & 7 and others, who were appointed after the petitioners but were permanent but at the same time neglected/omitted the petitioners, who have been

2025:JHHC:35144

working for last 15 years or more than sanctioned post have been neglected/omitted.

ii) For a declaration that 8 years delay in framing the scheme of regularization by the respondent no.1, and also without taking into consideration that the state of Jharkhand itself was created off late making its new staffing arrangement was only made subsequently to cater to the immediate and urgent need, the scheme should have contained some parameters for those employees who continued as such and were appointed many years before the cut-off date i.e. 10-04-2006 so that inequality may not dampen the equal opportunity in seeking public employment, particularly during when the period of scheme was not framed and many employees were made permanent on pick and choose basis ignoring the claims of petitioners who were better placed having served more number of years.

2. During pendency of this application, an Interlocutory

Application being I.A.No.2964 of 2024 has been filed by the

Petitioners challenging the order dated 21.07.2023 which was

filed by the respondents in the supplementary counter

affidavit; whereby the claim of the Petitioners for

regularisation has been rejected.

Looking to the averments made in the application; the

Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.2964 of 2024 is

allowed.

3. Briefly stated, the Petitioners, who were working on

daily wage basis were initially appointed on sanctioned post

in Hazaribagh Municipality now Corporation, since more than

two decades vide Annexure-1 (Appointment letter dated

15.02.2002 of Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and Appointment letter

dated 09.10.2002 of Petitioner Nos. 3 & 4). Thereafter, the

post became unsanctioned but they continued to work on

2025:JHHC:35144

daily wage basis. Thereafter, a chart of employees was sent

for regularization, wherein the name of the petitioners was at

S.nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 (Annexure 2).

Further facts reveal that the Respondents nos. 5, 6 & 7

who were appointed on daily wage basis in the year 2004-

2005 were made permanent in the year 2006 but the

petitioners have not been regularized. Though, they have

represented the Respondents for being made permanent as

they were discharging duties since 2002 much before the

Respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 were appointed; however, in spite of

Regularization Rules framed in the year 2015, no action was

taken. Hence this Writ application.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that

the Assistant Town Commissioner has forwarded a list of

daily wagers (under Local Bodies namely Respondent No.2

i.e. Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation) to the Assistant

Director, Town Administration Directorate, Urban

Development and housing Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi

for regularization vide letter dated 01.02.2022. From bare

perusal of the list, it is evident that the name of the

petitioners find place at Sl. No.1,11,13 and 80.

He further submits that similar list was forwarded in

the year 2016 also vide letter No.22.12.2016 wherein the

name of these petitioners were included but no action was

taken. He further submits that during pendency of the Writ

2025:JHHC:35144

application the respondents have rejected the claim of

petitioners for regularization which is made impugned by

filing Interlocutory Application, wherein they have taken

ground that there is break in service of the petitioners; as

such, they cannot be regularized.

This action is not tenable in the eyes of law as per

their own chart, wherein the Petitioners have been shown to

work continuously for 10 years in the year 2012 itself

(Annexure 8/1); as such, the impugned order may be set

aside and the respondents may be directed to regularize the

services of the Petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the Regularization Committee, Urban Development &

Housing Urban Department, Government of Jharkhand in its

meeting dated 03.07.2023 circulated vide Memo No. 1262

dated 21.07.2023 has rejected the petitioners' claim for

regularization as they were not working continuously for the

period of 10 years and there is break in service of the

petitioners and they were not appointed on sanctioned post;

as such, no relief should be granted to these Petitioners.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents annexed with the

respective affidavits, it appears that one of the grounds taken

for rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for Regularisation is

that the Petitioners were not working continuously for the

2025:JHHC:35144

period of 10 years and there is break in service of the

Petitioners; however, after perusal of list of employees

working on daily wage basis sent by the Assistant Town

commissioner forwarded to the Assistant Director, Urban

Development and Housing Department, Jharkhand Ranchi

for regularization of the employees vide letter dated

01.02,2022 finds the name of these petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3 &

7. Further, from the aforesaid chart, it is evident

that at Sl. No.80 under Column No.4, date of appointment of

Petitioner no.1 is indicated as 02.01.2002 and under Column

No. 10 it has been stated that 10 years continuously working

on 02.01.2012 and in Column No. 11 it has been indicated

that on sufficient attendance, continuous payment is being

given.

Likewise, at Sl.No.1, date of appointment of Petitioner

no.2 has been admitted as 15.02.2002 and under Column

No. 10 it has stated that 10 years continuously working

15.02.2012 and under Column No. 11 it has been stated that

on sufficient attendance, continuous payment is being given.

Similarly, at Sl. no. 13, under Column No. 4, the date

of appointment of Petitioner No. of 3 is mentioned as

09.10.2002, and in Column No. 10 it has been stated that 10

years continuously working as on 09.10.2012 and under

2025:JHHC:35144

Column No. 11 it has been specified that on sufficient

attendance continuous payment is being given.

Further, in Sl. No.11 under Column No. 4, date of

appointment of Petitioner no.4 is indicated as 09.10.2002

and in Column No. 10 it has been stated that 10 years

continuously working as on 09.10.2012 and in Column No.

11 it has been specified that on sufficient attendance,

continuous payment is being given.

8. It further transpires from Annexure 9 and

Annexure 9/1, which is dated 22.12.2016 that the Executive

Officer, Municipal Corporation Hazaribagh sent a list of

temporary/Contractual employee working in Nagar parishad

(Municipal Corporation) to the Assistant Director, Directorate

of Urban Administration, Urban Development and Housing

Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein the name of

Petitioner no. 1 is shown at Sl. No. l and in column 8, it is

shown service period of 14 year 10 months. Likewise, the

name of Petitioner no. 2 is shown at Sl. No. 2 and in column

8, it has been shown that service period of 14 years 10

months. Similarly, the name of Petitioner no.3 is shown at Sl.

No. 4 and under column 8, it indicates the service period as

14 years 2 months and the name of the Petitioner no.4 has

been shown in Sl.No.5, wherein at column 8, it has been

shown that his service period is of 14 years 2 months.

2025:JHHC:35144

9. From the aforesaid two list which was of the year 2016

and 2022 sent for regularization; it is crystal clear that while

the decision processes was initiated and the Petitioners were

duly recommended for regularization by the Respondents, on

the basis of attendance and the payment that they were

continuously working for last 20 years, but the material were

perhaps not placed before the committee and/or the

committee was misled resulting in miscarriage of justice, as it

appears from the rejection letter dated 21.07.2023 of their

claim for regularisation.

10. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Jaggo vs Union of India1 has held that when public sector

entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only

mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy

but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public

trust in governmental operations. For brevity, relevant

paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are quoted herein

below:

"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

2025:JHHC:35144

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"

appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's

2025:JHHC:35144

functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country".

11. So far as the second ground taken by the

Respondents in the impugned order of rejection that the

Petitioners were not working on the sanctioned post is

concerned; the same is not tenable as is evident from

Annexure-2 at column 11, where it has been mentioned that

it was sanctioned prior to 2006. This clearly goes to show

that when these Petitioners joined their service in 2002, the

post was duly sanctioned; however, subsequently it was

withdrawn.

Even otherwise, Respondents have taken work

from all these Petitioners for more than 20 years and now

they cannot allow to take ground that they were not working

on sanctioned post. This issue has already been answered

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nihal Singh and

Others vs. State of Punjab and Others2. Relevant para-20

of the Judgment is quoted as under:

"20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need."

12. In view of the aforesaid finding, impugned order

dated 21.07.2023; whereby the concerned Respondent has

rejected the case for regularization of these Petitioners, is

2013) 14 SCC 65

2025:JHHC:35144

hereby, quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Respondents

are directed to regularize the services of these Petitioners

within a period of 10 weeks from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this order.

13. In view of the above, the instant Writ application

is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk N.A.F.R/A.F.R