Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 710 of 2019
Pankaj Kumar, aged about 37 years son of Sri Navratan Sharma, resident
of Block Campus, Ward No.04, Lohardagga, P.O. & P.S.-Lohardagga,
Distt- Lohardagga, State-Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi.
3. The District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Lohardagga through
the Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, Lohardagga, P.O. & P.S.-
Lohardagga, District-Lohardagga.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lohardagga cum Managing
Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Lohardagga, P.O.
& P.S.- Lohardagga, District-Lohardagga. ... ... Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(S) No. 1881 of 2020
Anantkam, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Rambriksh Mahto, resident of
Hatiya Garden, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.
... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.
3. The District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Lohardaga, through
the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S.
Lohardaga, District Lohardaga.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lohardaga-cum-Managing
Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Lohardaga, P.O.
and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. ... ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
[in W.P.S No. 1881 of 2020]
Mr. Amandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate
[in W.P.S No. 710 of 2019]
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I
[in W.P.S No. 710 of 2019]
Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V
[in W.P.S No. 1881 of 2020]
1
2025:JHHC:28644
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V on 20/08/2025 Pronounced on 17/09/2025
Since common issue is involved in both these writ
applications, as such they were heard together and being disposed of by
this common order.
2. In W.P.(S) No. 710 of 2019 the petitioner has made following
prayers:
"1. a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the memo
no. 455 dated 19.7.2017 (annexure 7) passed by the respondent authorities
wherein the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service was
rejected stating therein that the appointment of the petitioner was not
approved by the governing body which is a requisite according to the letter
dated 8.9.2006 by the Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural
Development, Govt. of India.
And
b) Further memo no. 02 dated 2.1.2019 (annexure 8) may be quashed
wherein the service of the petitioner was terminated/ discontinued w.e.f
15.1.2019 stating therein the appointment of the petitioner was not in
accordance with the service rule of DRDA or by any procedure of
appointment and his service in the department was no longer required.
And
c) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions including a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer
Operator cum clerk under respondent-District Rural Development Agency,
Lohardaga in terms of order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal no. 67 of 2011 and Government notification dated 13.02.2015
with all consequential benefits.
And
d) For grant of any other appropriate relief(s) to which the petitioner is
legally entitled for doing conscionable justice in the facts and circumstances
of the case."
3. In W.P.(S) No. 1881 of 2020 the petitioner has made
following prayers:
"1(i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s),
particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of office order
dated 02.01.2019, as contained in memo no. 02/अभि० (Annexure-12 of this
writ application), issued by the respondent no.4, whereby decision has been
taken to remove the petitioner from services of Computer Operator in the
office of District Rural Development Agency, Lohardaga, on the ground that
his services were not renewed after December, 2011.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly
a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent
2025:JHHC:28644
authorities to reinstate the petitioner back in services, with all consequential
benefits.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s),
particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the
respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner, in
pursuance to Central Govt. communication dated 08.09.2006 (Annexure-7
of this writ application), and the regularization of several other persons in
the same post.
And / Or
For issuance of any other appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s) for
doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
4. The brief facts of the case as it appears from these writ
applications are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of
Computer Operator, on contractual basis in the office of District Rural
Development Authority, Lohardaga. The appointments were made on the
basis of advertisement published and the select-list was prepared on the
basis of interview. Thereafter, the petitioners joined and continued in
service without any complaint and their services were duly extended from
time to time.
In the year 2006, Government of India through Ministry of
Rural Development in an official communication dated 08.09.2006,
addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand requested to take necessary action in the matter
of appointment, promotion, posting, transfer, pension, gratuity, etc., that
had to be regulated by the Government body of DRDA with the approval
of the respective State Government. Thereafter, in pursuance to the letter
of the Government of India, the name of the eligible candidates has been
sent to the competent authority by the DDC, Lohardaga. One such letter is
at Annexure-6 series dated 12.08.2011 in W.P.(S) No. 1881 of 2020, which
includes name of one Ganesh Pandey at Serial No.13 and name of one
Pankaj Kumar and another Anantkam at Serial. Nos.14 & 15 respectively.
When no action was taken then Ganesh Pandey approached
this Court in W.P.(S) No.3451 of 2010 praying for engagement on
permanent establishment which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the said
Ganesh Pandey moved in appeal being L.P.A No.67 of 2011 which was
2025:JHHC:28644
allowed in his favour and he was regularized. Thereafter, Pankaj Kumar,
the petitioner in W.P.(S) 710 of 2019 moved before this Court in W.P.(S)
No.638 of 2016 claiming parity with Ganesh Pandey and the matter was
remitted to the authority with a direction that if the petitioner was similarly
situated, he shall be regularized.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondents passed the
order dated 19.07.2017 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, namely Pakaj
Kumar. Thereafter on 02.01.2019, office order was passed by the D.R.D.A,
Lohardaga, wherein, the services of the present petitioners were
terminated on the ground that as per records, extension could be granted
only up till December 2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have
preferred the present writ applications.
5. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submits that the
petitioners have continued to work and receive salary from the respondent-
authorities, after due approval and further, their services have been duly
accepted by the respondent-authorities. Under such circumstances, it is
contended that the question of extension of services being raised by the
respondents at this late stage, is of no relevance and it shall be deemed that
they have continued in services. Non-extension would be merely an
irregularity which can be regularized.
He further submits that the petitioners have been working on
the same post under the same respondent as that of Ganesh Pandey,
however, they have not been regularized and have been terminated
illegally. Further the benefit of judgment passed in L.P.A No. 67 of 2011
has not been extended to these petitioners which is highly discriminatory
and arbitrary in nature and violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the wages of
the petitioners were increased but deemed automatic renewal is not true.
He further contends that the petitioners were appointed on contractual
basis/temporary basis and the terms of appointment were listed in the
2025:JHHC:28644
appointment orders as such they are not entitled to be regularized.
Learned counsel further submits that the order passed by this
Court in L.P.A No. 67 of 2011 was allowed only for the concerned
appellant i.e. Ganesh Pandey and was not a set of guidelines to be
followed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents available on record, it appears that the main
grievance of the present petitioners is that they have been illegally
terminated and they ought to have been considered for regularization at
par with similarly situated employees.
8. With respect to the termination of the petitioners; on perusal
of the impugned order, it is evident that the only ground taken by the
respondents for terminating the service of the petitioners is that there has
been extension only up till December 2011 of their contractual
employment, and thereafter, there has been no further extension. This
reasoning is not acceptable to this Court since the petitioners have
continued to work and received salary from the respondent-authorities,
after due approval and further, their services have been duly accepted by
the respondent-authorities.
Under such circumstances, the question of extension of
services being raised by the respondents at this belated stage, is of no
relevance and it would be deemed that they have continued in services.
Non-extension would be merely an irregularity which can be cured and the
same was also not due to the fault of the present petitioners. In this regard,
the respondents remain silent in the counter-affidavit.
Even otherwise, on the premises that the petitioners had
worked and received salary, it can safely be inferred that their services
were deemed to be extended.
9. In the present set of cases, the moot issue is extension of
contract. It is a trite law that contract is written, oral and by conduct.
Going by that count, since the employment of the petitioners was being
2025:JHHC:28644
accepted by the respondent-authorities, and payment to them was being
made, it would be deemed that they had continued in services and,
therefore, the ground taken by the respondents of non-extension of their
contract, is not valid in the eyes of law and cannot form a ground of
termination.
Therefore, the only ground taken by the respondents for
termination of the petitioners from services does not pass the scrutiny. If
that ground is negated, the termination order stands bereft of any other
grounds.
In such view of the matter, the petitioners must be reinstated.
Even looking on to the counter- affidavit, there is no other ground that has
been taken by the respondent-authorities to substantiate the termination; as
such the impugned order dated 02.01.2019 is non est in the eye of law.
10. So far as question of regularization/absorption of the
petitioners in permanent establishment is concerned, it appears that the
order by which the regularization of Pankaj Kumar [petitioner in W.P.(S)
710 of 2019] has been denied by the respondents is based on the ground
that the name of aforementioned petitioner was not recommended by the
Committee for absorption and regularization in the year 2008.
The ground taken by the respondent-authorities in rejecting
the claim of petitioner is not acceptable by this Court as on perusal of
Annexure-6 series in W.P.(S) No. 1881 of 2020; whereby the names of the
candidates have been sent by the DRDA, Lohardaga to the competent
authority, in pursuance to the Government of India requisition of
08.09.2006, it appears that the name of the petitioners were sent along
with the name of Ganesh Pandey, and, therefore, there is no dis-similarity
as far as status of the employees is concerned.
It further appears that it is not because of the latches on part
of the petitioners that their names were not placed before the Managing
Committee, which would have found them eligible and recommended their
name; rather the latches lie in the action of respondents who did not bother
2025:JHHC:28644
to place their names before the Managing Committee, which would have
recommended their name for regularization and absorption. To this, the
respondents have nothing to say in the counter-affidavit.
It is also evident that the appointment of these petitioners was
made by the competent authority, in pursuance to the provisions of
Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Under such circumstances, if the
case of Sri Ganesh Pandey is to be regularized and absorbed in permanent
establishment, the case of the petitioners cannot be denied for the reason
that the Managing Committee did not recommend their names for
regularization/absorption.
11. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 02.01.2019 and
19.07.2017, are hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondent-
authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioners and regularise their
services on the post of Computer Operator-cum-Clerk within a period of
10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
12. As a result, both these writ applications stand allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 17/09/2025
Amit
N. A.F.R
