Man Singh Tiru vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5692 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Man Singh Tiru vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                             2025:JHHC:28049




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(S) No. 3953 of 2013
1.    Man Singh Tiru, son of late Mosophatam, resident of Pokla, P.O.
      Itke, P.S. Murhu, District Khunti.

2.    Uma Shankar Singh, son of late Bhuneshwar Singh resident of
      Dahuguttu, P.O.. P.S. and District Khunti.   .......      Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand.
2.    The Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department,
      Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.
      Doranda, District Ranchi.
3.    The Engineer in Chief, Director, Drinking water and Sanitation
      Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.
      and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
4.    The Regional Chief Engineer, Drinking water and Sanitation
      Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.
      and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
5.    The Superintending Engineer. Drinking Water & Sanitation Circle,
      Ranch, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of
      Jharkhand, Ranchi.
6.    The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Division,
      Khunti, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of
      Jharkhand, Khunti, P.O. , P.S. and District Khunti.

                                                   ...... Respondents

CORAM:              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                                 ......

For Petitioners: Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, A.C. to G.P.-III

CAV on: 26.08.2025 Pronounced on:11 .09.2025

1. Present writ application has been filed by Petitioners praying therein for following reliefs:-

2025:JHHC:28049

"a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents- authorities to immediately and forthwith reinstate and absorb the Petitioners in regular establishment on the post of Jeep Driver, in the light of direction given by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 6826/02 along with analogous cases whereby and whereunder this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to direct the respondents that work charge employees who have completed more than 5 years of service against one post in work charge establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking their service in the permanent/regular establishment irrespective of their date of appointment.

b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), particularly a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent- authorities to reinstate and absorb the petitioners in regular establishment also in terms of government resolution No. 3423 dated 01.08.07 whereby and whereunder the respondent-authorities in the light of Full Bench Judgment, has resolved to regularize/absorb the service of all such persons who have completed more than 5 years of continuous service on a permanent and vacant post.

c. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s), direction(s), particularly a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents- authorities not to discriminate the case of present petitioner to that of one similarly situated Golesta Tigga whose service has been absorbed pursuant to order passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 568 of 2000(R) but the case of this petitioners is being discriminated arbitrarily. d. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s), direction(s), particularly a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondent-authorities to immediately and forthwith decide the case of the petitioners in terms of Letter No. 149 dated 25.2.12 whereby and whereunder the Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Khunti has intimated the Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Ranchi to decide the case of the Petitioners in light of direction passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 568/2000 (R) and other laws/rules applicable.

e. For grant of any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioner is very entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

2025:JHHC:28049

2. Briefly stated, Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as a 'Daily Wage Worker' on the post of Jeep Driver on 01.04.1988 and, thereafter, after completion of satisfactory work, he was absorbed in Work Charge Establishment on 06.01.1990. Similarly, Petitioner No.2 was appointed on 06.06.1988 as a 'Daily Wage Worker' on the post of Jeep Driver and was absorbed in Work Charge Establishment on the said post of Jeep Driver on 06.01.1990.

3. From bare perusal of their absorption letters in Work Charge Establishment, it would be evident that both the Petitioners were absorbed in the pay-scale of Rs. 480-680 in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Khunti. It further transpires that both the Petitioners were working as work charge employees and continued to work for more than 5 (five) years, but vide order dated 13.07.1999, Petitioners were removed from their respective post.

4. Removal order was challenged by the Petitioners by filing a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 5441 of 2002 and said writ application was disposed of on 25.03.2003 directing Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners and to pass reasoned order. However, no reasoned order was passed and Petitioner, instead of approaching this Court by filing contempt application, filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 6267 of 2003, wherein Petitioners again challenged their removal from service as work charge employees. Said writ application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.11.2009.

5. The fact further reveals that in the meantime, Hon'ble Full Court of Jharkhand High Court, in the case of Ram Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 38 (FB), considered the issue pertaining to absorption/regularization of work charge employees including payment of retiral benefits.

6. In light of aforesaid decision, Petitioners were filing repeated representations before Respondent-authorities for consideration of their cases and pursuant to such representations, Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Khunti, after considering the case of Petitioners, vide Letter No. 149 dated 25.02.2012, requested Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, 2025:JHHC:28049

Ranchi to consider the case of Petitioners and to pass appropriate order. However, despite such recommendation, when no order was passed, Petitioners were compelled to approach this Court by filing present writ application, being W.P.(S) No. 3953 of 2013.

7. During pendency of the writ application, Respondent-authority issued Letter No. 5310 dated 30.12.2013, wherein Petitioner No.1 was reinstated on the post of Jeep Driver in work-charge establishment, whereas no such order was passed in the case of Petitioner No.2.

8. Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate, appearing for Petitioners, placed extensive reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Ram Prasad Singh (supra) and contended that Petitioners, having served in work-charge establishment for more than 5 (five) years, their disengagement from service was patently arbitrary and contrary to the Judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench.

9. It was further submitted that after decision of Hon'ble Full Bench, Government of Jharkhand resolved vide Memo No. 3423 dated 01.08.2007, to regularize services of all such persons who have been working under work-charge establishment and have completed more than 5 years of service, but despite such decision of the State Government, cases of writ petitioners were not considered.

10. It was further also submitted that Petitioner No.1 was reinstated, but again in work-charge establishment only and not on permanent post; whereas Petitioner No.2 was even discriminated and was not even reinstated.

11. It was then contended that since Petitioners have already attained the age of superannuation, they are entitled to be treated as regular employees having completed more than 5 years of continuous service against one post in work charge establishment and, thus, are entitled for retirement benefits, such as Pension/Family Pension, Gratuity, Leave encashment, G.P.F., Group Insurance amount, etc. in terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench.

2025:JHHC:28049

12. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Respondent-State opposed the writ application and stated that during pendency of the writ application, Petitioner No.1 was reinstated as Jeep Driver in work charge establishment as he is belonging to Scheduled Tribe category; but Petitioner No.2 was not reinstated as he is a member of General category and cannot claim parity with that of Petitioner No.1

13. It was also submitted that in Khunti Division, only one Jeep was plying for which one Sita Ram Sharma was engaged on regular basis and Petitioner No.1-Man Singh Tiru was working on work charge basis and, therefore, no further requirement of Driver is existing in the said Division.

14. On the issue of discrimination and non-compliance of the Judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench, it was stated that Petitioner No.2 cannot be treated at par with Petitioner No.1, as Petitioner No.1 is a member of Scheduled Tribe category and Petitioner No.2 is belonging to General category.

15. Having heard learned Counsels of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issue involved in the instant writ application is no longer res integra and is settled by Full Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6826 of 2002 vide order dated 03.02.2005. In the said Judgment, Hon'ble Full Bench has held at Para-80 as under:-

"(i) The work-charged employees, who have completed more than five years of continuous service against one post in the work-charged establishment and otherwise eligible, have a right of consideration of their cases for taking over their services in the permanent (regular) establishment, irrespective of their dates of appointment.

But the work-charged employees, working on daily wages, not holding any posts are not so entitled.

(ii) The dependents of work-charged employees are not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground; and

(iii) The work-charged employees working against a post, in regular scale of pay, on their retirement and after their death, their heirs/dependents are entitled to claim death-cum-retiral benefits, such as, pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. apart from G.P.F. and Group Insurance amount, if otherwise fulfills the requisite qualifying period to earn pension, gratuity and leave encashment."

16. Admittedly, both the Petitioners were initially appointed as Daily Wage employees and, subsequently, they were absorbed under 2025:JHHC:28049

Work Charge Establishment against sanctioned post in fixed pay-scale. It is also an undisputed fact that both the Petitioners have completed more than 5 years of continuous service, but thereafter they were removed from the post in the year 1999 i.e. after almost 11 years of service.

17. During pendency of the writ application, although Petitioner No.1 was reinstated in service, but only in work charge establishment and not on regular basis; and, Petitioner No.2 was discriminated even in the matter of reinstatement in work charge establishment.

18. In terms of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Full Bench, Petitioner No.1, who has already completed more than 5 years of continuous service from the date of reinstatement, is entitled for regularization and/or taking over of his services in permanent/regular establishment. So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, although this Court is of the opinion that Petitioner No.2 was discriminated, but still, no relief can be extended to Petitioner No.2 in view of specific stand taken by Respondents in their Counter Affidavit that there is no further sanctioned post available of Jeep Driver in Khunti Division.

19. In view of aforesaid cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is partly allowed and Respondents are directed to treat the services of Petitioner No.1 in permanent/regular establishment after completion of 5 (five) years from the date of reinstatement of Petitioner No.1 i.e. from 17.12.2013 and, further, to extend all retiral benefits to Petitioner No.1, such as, Pension/ Family Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, etc.

20. Accordingly, writ application is partly allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J) Amardeep/ AFR