Md. Rafik @ Md. Rafiqe vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7170 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Md. Rafik @ Md. Rafiqe vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 25 November, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                              2025:JHHC:35081


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           WP(S) No.1145 of 2021
                                      -----
             Md. Rafik @ Md. Rafiqe, son of late Abdul Gani, R/o village
             Chattarbar, PO Karma, PS Koderma, District Koderma,
             Jharkhand                                ... Petitioner(s).
                                Versus
             1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project
             Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jaggarnathpur, District Ranchi
             2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment
             and Climate Change, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO and
             PS Doranda, District Ranchi
             3.The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
             4.The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Koderma
             5.The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Hazaribagh, PO,
             PS and District Hazaribagh
             6.The Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Range, PO, PS and District
             Koderma                                        ... Respondent(s).

             CORAM      :      SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanket Khanna, AC to AAG-V .........

07 /25.11.2025: Heard the parties.

2. The poor petitioner is before this Court praying for regularisation of his service. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Cattle Guard and working in the office of Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Range, Koderma in the Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand since long, but his services has not been regularised.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is working for more than 25 years but the document specially Annexure-1 and the facts which transpires from the writ petition and the counter affidavit suggests that the petitioner is working as Cattle Guard since 01.04.2003. Annexure-1 series are the certificates given by the Range Forest Officer, Wild Life Range, Koderma which suggest that atleast from 01.04.2003 the petitioner is working. Further it is fact that after filing of this writ petition the

2025:JHHC:35081

petitioner was removed from service w.e.f. 2021 and thereafter by virtue of the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by this Court the petitioner was reinstated. This also is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was continuously working with the respondents except from 2021 to October 2025, when the petitioner was forcibly kept out of the service because he has filed this writ petition for regularisation. As the petitioner has worked for this long period, he has approached this Court praying for regularisation of his service. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit and opposed the said regularisation. The opposition is on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of Cattle Guard under the respondents thus the petitioner's appointment as Cattle Guard itself is bad. Further the respondents have taken shelter of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Uma Devi vs. State of Karnataka"

reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and submitted that since the very appointment of the petitioner is illegal, he is not entitled for the benefits.

4. From the facts of the case it is apparent and has been established by the petitioner that he was working atleast from 01.04.2003 till he was removed in 2021 i.e. after this writ application for regularisation was filed. It is also a fact that after the order was passed by this Court on 09.09.2025 a direction was issued to reinstate, the petitioner, who was reinstated on October 2025. This means that the respondents have accepted the order of reinstatement. Impliedly they have also acknowledged that the petitioner has worked from 2003.

5. Plea has been taken by the respondents that there is no post of Cattle Guard. Even if there is no post of Cattle Guard but the fact remains that the petitioner was employed by the respondents and was paid the daily wages as a Class-IV employee which is apparent from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This means that the petitioner was kept as Class-IV employee, even if there is no post of Cattle Guard. Admittedly the petitioner who worked for 20 long years has now approached this Court claiming

2025:JHHC:35081

regularisation. The petitioner was working as Cattle Guard but his appointment was against Class-IV category. There may be several posts in the Class-IV category in which the petitioner could have been adjusted but the respondents did not do so, thus has committed a grave illegality. Taking work from a person for 20 long years and not regularising him and thereby depriving him of service benefits like pension etc. cannot be accepted, that too, if it is done at the behest of the State or instrumentalities of the State. The very fact that work was taken from the petitioner for long 20 years suggest that whatever work the petitioner was performing was essential for the department and can definitely be said to be perennial in nature.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others" reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 has held that long and uninterrupted service for a period extending well beyond 10 years cannot be brushed aside merely by lebelling their initial appointment as part-time and contractual. In paragraph 10 it has further been held that the essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work and the fact that no evidence suggest that their entry was illegal or by surreptitious route. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:

"10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route."

7. The work which the petitioner was performing is continuous in nature and for a period of about 20 years. The claim of the respondents that there was no regular post, has been answered in the aforesaid judgment at paragraph 13. It has been held that the

2025:JHHC:35081

claim that there was no regular post, lacks merits as the nature of work performed by the workers were perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the respondents. It has been further held that the recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular post irrespective of how their initial appointment was labelled. It is necessary to quote paragraph 13 of the said judgment:

"13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional."

8. In the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court the workers were abruptly terminated following the dismissal of their application for regularisation by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took exception of the aforesaid act and held that the termination letter issued without prior notice or explanation violates the principle of nature justice and contractual employees also are entitled for fair hearing before any adverse action is taken. In this case also the petitioner was removed from service without any notice but by the order of this Court he was reinstated.

9. Further in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 16 has held that consistent performance over a long 10 years solidifies the claim for regularisation. In this case also, I find that the tenure of the petitioner is long which is about 20 years and there is no issue in respect of his performance.

10. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Uma Devi" (supra) has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jaggo" (supra). It has been held that

2025:JHHC:35081

Uma Devi is misused and it does not intend to penalise the employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The principles are misinterpreted to deny the legitimate claim of long serving employees. Paragraph 26 of the judgment deals with the issue. Further in paragraph 27 it has been opined that it is imperative for the government department to lead an example in providing fair and stable employment. It has been held that engaging workers on temporary basis for long period when their role is integral to the organisation not only contravenes international labour standard but also exposes the organisation to legal challenges and undermines employee morale.

11. The case in hand is more or less similar. Here as held earlier and admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has worked for more than 20 years and still working, is deprived of the service benefits as he has not been regularised. Working for 20 years continuously is enough to regularise the service of the petitioner.

12. I thus direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in Class-IV post and grant all the pecuniary benefits to him. However, he is not entitled for salary for the period he has not worked i.e. from 2021 to October 2025, the period when he was kept out of the service, but for other benefits this period will be counted as in service.

13. This writ application stands allowed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.) 25.11.2025

Tanuj

Uploaded on 29.11.2025