Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Rajak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:30778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2249 of 2021
------
Birendra Rajak, S/o Kashi Rajak, R/o Road Division, Chas, P.O. Chas,
P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Additional Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Divisional Commissioner-cum-
Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
5. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department at C.M.P.D.I., P.O.
Gandhi Nagar, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi.
6. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribag.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Shah Deo, AC to SC-II
------
06/ 06.10.2025
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
part of Office Order as contained in Memo No.2740 dated
26.10.2013, whereby the respondent - State gave fresh
appointment to the petitioner but has not regularized his service.
3. The petitioner had earlier approached this High Court in
W.P.(S) No.2548 of 2007. In the said writ petition, the petitioner
claimed regularization as he was working since 28.07.1983. He had
also challenged the Office Order, whereby his claim for regularization
was rejected.
2025:JHHC:30778
3.1. While hearing the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.2548 of 2007 along with another analogues case, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petition vide order dated
16.04.2009, had held that the petitioners were engaged on daily
wages prior to the prescribed cut-off date i.e. 01.08.1985, and have
also worked for 26 to 27 days in a month and have completed more
than 240 days in a calendar year prior to the cut-off date i.e.
01.08.1985 and they were entitled for regularization.
3.2. Further, in para-11 of the aforesaid order, it had been
specifically held that the petitioners are working uninterruptedly for
last 26 years. Considering the fact that the petitioners were working
for last 26 years uninterruptedly, the Coordinate Bench allowed the
writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioners for regularization within a period of six months.
4. The respondents without regularizing the services of the
petitioner, issued a fresh appointment letter vide Memo No.2740
dated 26.10.2013. Be it noted that the respondent - State had
challenged the order passed in the writ petition in the Letters Patent
Appeal being L.P.A. No.297 of 2009 but the Division Bench of this
Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2009 did not interfere with the
same, holding that only liberty was granted to the respondent - State
to consider the case of the petitioner and no adverse order has been
passed against the respondent - State, and thus dismissed the
Letters Patent Appeal.
5. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the finding of the learned
Single Judge to the effect that the petitioner was working for more
2025:JHHC:30778
than 26 to 27 years regularly and had completed 240 days as a Daily
Wager in a calendar year, was not disturbed. Rather, the Division
Bench had held in the penultimate paragraph that if the respondent
(petitioner herein) had filed an Appeal claiming regularization,
perhaps he would have had a water-tight case of regularization since
he had been discharging duties in daily wages for last 26 years and
admittedly the statutory requirement of completion of 240 days as a
Daily Wager would have held him entitled for regularization in
service, but the respondent (petitioner herein) has not filed any
Appeal. This finding of the Division Bench also fortifies the fact that
the petitioner had worked for more than 26 years.
6. Since the petitioner has worked for more than 26 years,
he could not have been issued a fresh appointment letter, rather in
terms of the order and judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge and the
Division Bench of this Court, he should have been regularized. Thus,
the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner,
cannot be sustained. The respondents now cannot take a plea that
the petitioner was not qualified to be regularized, as the Coordinate
Bench and the Division Bench of this Court had also considered all
these aspects and the order was passed in favour of the petitioner.
7. Thus, the part of Office Order as contained in Memo
No.2740 dated 26.10.2013, whereby the petitioner has been given
fresh appointment, is set aside.
7.1. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh order of
regularization in favour of the petitioner from the date he was initially
appointed and recalculate the retiral benefits of the petitioner,
2025:JHHC:30778
considering that the petitioner stood regularized from the date of his
appointment.
7.2. The monetary benefits should be disbursed to the
petitioner within ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
06th October, 2025
Prashant. Cp-2
