Priya Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2734 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Priya Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 April, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                               2026:JHHC:9928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         Cont. Case (Civil) No. 969 of 2025
                         .........

1. Priya Kumari, aged about 37 years, wife of Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, resident of Santman Nagar, Road No.02, Old HB Road, Imam Kothi, Deepatoli, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi.

2. Subodh Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 51 years, son of Bipin Bihari Upadhyay, resident of Siyaram Nagar, Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh, presently residing at Flat No.503, Anjali Apartment (Behind K.C. Roy Memorial Hospital), P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Ranchi.

3. Mahwish Zabeen, aged about 38 years, daughter of Mohammad Imtiyaz Alam, resident of near Ranchi Public School, Firdous Colony, L.F. Road, Hindpiri, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Prem Kumar Tiwary son of Ramakant Tiwary presently posted and working as General Manager, Administration, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

3. Pradeep Kumar Sah son of Ramdhani Sah, presently posted and working as Establishment In-Charge, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

..... Contemnor(s)/Opposite Party(s) with

.........

1. Priya Kumari, aged about 37 years, wife of Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, resident of Santman Nagar, Road No.02, Old HB Road, Imam Kothi, Deepatoli, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi.

2. Subodh Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 51 years, son of Bipin Bihari Upadhyay, resident of Siyaram Nagar, Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh, presently residing at Flat No.503, Anjali Apartment (Behind K.C. Roy Memorial Hospital), P.O. & P.S. -

2026:JHHC:9928

Lalpur, Ranchi.

3. Mahwish Zabeen, aged about 38 years, daughter of Mohammad Imtiyaz Alam, resident of near Ranchi Public School, Firdous Colony, L.F. Road, Hindpiri, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

2. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

3. The General Manager, Administration, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

4. M/s Evergreen Services, through its Authorized Representative, having its registered office at Shop No.F- 9, Housing Board Marketing Complex, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

5. In-Charge Establishment, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) .........

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

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari, A.C. to G.P.-III Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate M/s. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Rashi Sharma, Ruhi Dueby, Advocate .........

C.A.V. ON: 19/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:07/04/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have challenged the letter bearing

No. 582 dated 09.05.2025 issued by the Jharkhand State

Mineral Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter

2026:JHHC:9928

referred to as "JSMDC") by which an outsourced agency

namely M/s Evergreen Services has been directed to

provide a list of 8 eligible candidates for appointment on

the post of Accountant in the JSMDC by 19.05.2025 and

the candidates should appear alongwith their bio-data in

the interview for engagement on contractual basis.

The petitioners have further prayed for a direction

not to disengage them by replacing one set of contractual

employees by another set of contractual employees and

further the benefits of enhanced dearness allowance have

also been claimed in view of the Resolution dated

18.02.2022 and 03.05.2023 issued by the Department of

Finance, Government of Jharkhand.

Brief Facts

3. The petitioners were appointed on the basis of an

annual contract to discharge the function of an Accountant

during the period 2017-2019, pursuant to advertisement

bearing Advertisement Notice No. 02/ 2016 and

Recruitment Notice No. 02/2018 on a consolidated monthly

remuneration of Rs. 29,060/-. The services of the

petitioners have been extended from time to time.

Case of the petitioners

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they

were working on contractual basis as Accountants under

2026:JHHC:9928

JSMDC from 2017 or 2019, however, the JSMDC was

replacing one set of contractual employees by appointing

another group of contractual employees for the post of

Accountant, which is contrary to the decisions of the

Hon'ble Apex Court.

Case of the JSMDC

5. The petitioners are working for last 5 to 6 years

and their case cannot be considered for regularization as

there is no policy for regularization in JSMDC and in

absence of any policy, no contractual employee has any

vested right to claim regularization of service. The

contractual employees can only be employed for a period of

5 years maximum in view of the decision taken by the

Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and

Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand as contained in

Memo No. 4063 dated 18.05.2016. The policy decision has

been taken by the JSMDC for taking services from the

outsourced agency.

Issues.

6. The issues which arise for consideration before this

Court are as follows:-

i. Whether the services of the petitioners can be regularized in absence of any policy ? ii. Whether one set of contractual employees can be replaced by another set of contractual employees ?

2026:JHHC:9928

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of enhanced dearness allowance in view of the Resolution dated 18.02.2022 and 03.05.2023 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand ?

Regularisation

7. Though the petitioners are working for last 5 to 6

years their case cannot be considered for regularization as

there is no policy for regularization under JSMDC and they

have not questioned the same. In absence of any

regularization policy, no contractual employee has any

vested right to claim regularization of service. It is well

settled principle of law that regularization cannot be

claimed as a matter of right unless there exists a specific

scheme or policy framed by the competent authority. The

engagement of the petitioners on contractual basis is purely

temporary in nature and does not confer any right for

regular appointment in the absence of compliance with

prescribed Recruitment Rules. The petitioners, being purely

contractual appointees, have no enforceable legal or

fundamental right to seek continuation, renewal, or

regularization of their services.

8. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioners have

not worked for more than 10 years and have not completed

the minimum period of service required in view of the

2026:JHHC:9928

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma

Devi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and there is no

scheme or policy for regularization and hence, in the

present case the claim for regularization is rejected and no

directions can be given for framing a policy as the Courts

generally cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel the

executive or legislature to frame a specific policy.

Replacement of Contractual Employees by another set

of Contractual Employees

9. It is well settled that a contractual employee has no

vested right to seek extension or renewal of contract. In

Yogesh Mahajan v. AIIMS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a

contractual employee cannot claim extension of service as a

matter of right. Similarly, in Institute of Management

Development v. Pushpa Srivastava reported in (1992) 4

SCC 33, it was held that upon expiry of the contractual

period, the right to continue in service comes to an end. In

the present case, the contracts of the petitioners have

expired in the year 2025.

10. The terms of appointment unequivocally stipulate

that the engagement was temporary, time-bound, and

would automatically come to an end upon expiry of the

2026:JHHC:9928

contractual period. It is a settled proposition of law that

contractual employment does not confer any right to

continuation or renewal beyond the stipulated term. The

relationship between the petitioners and the JSMDC is

governed strictly by the terms and conditions of their

respective contracts, which were for a fixed tenure and

stood terminated by efflux of time.

11. The engagement of the petitioners was not

continuous in the legal sense but consisted of a series of

fixed-term contracts. Each extension granted to the

petitioners constituted a fresh contractual engagement.

12. So far, the issue with respect to replacement of

contractual employees by another set of contractual

employees is concerned; there is decision taken by the

Government which is contained in Memo No. 4063 dated

18.05.2016 which prescribes a minimum tenure of three

years and a maximum tenure of five years for contractual

employees. The said decision is binding upon all State

instrumentalities, including the JSMDC. The JSMDC has

brought on record the decision of the Government, which

bars the JSMDC to engage any contractual employee for

more than five years.

The petitioners have neither challenged the validity

of the same; nor sought any relief against it.

2026:JHHC:9928

13. In the present case it is clearly established that the

contractual services of the petitioners are not being

replaced by another set of contractual employees; rather,

the same is being replaced by outsourcing agency and the

same is a policy decision and no challenge has been made

towards the policy and hence, no relief can be granted.

14. The petitioners are at liberty to apply to the

outsourced agency and their cases shall be considered

sympathetically and in accordance with the work

experience and qualifications and the admissible dues shall

be paid to them regularly. It is expected that the petitioners

shall work with utmost sincerity and integrity.

Enhanced Dearness

15. So far the claim of the petitioners with respect to

grant of enhanced dearness allowances are concerned; the

liberty is granted to the petitioners for making

representation to the Managing Director, JSMDC and the

same shall be considered by the Managing Director,

JSMDC in accordance with the circular of Department of

Finance, and if the petitioners are found to be entitled, the

benefits shall be extended to them and in the event any

adverse decision is taken the same shall be communicated

to the petitioner by a reasoned order.

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 969 of 2025

2026:JHHC:9928

16. By an order dated 25.06.2025, in W.P.(s) No. 2981

of 2025 an interim order was passed that the petitioners

shall not be disturbed by appointing any other employees

on contractual basis. Alleging non-compliance of this order

a contempt petition has been filed being Contempt Case

(Civil) No. 969 of 2025, which was heard parallelly and is

being disposed of by this common order.

17. The petitioners were removed/disturbed before the

interim order dated 25.06.2025 was passed by this Court,

hence there is no wilful, deliberate and intentional

disobedience to the Court's order which could have

amounted to contempt and consequently the instant

contempt is dropped. Pending IAs, if any, are closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:07/04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

Uploaded on 09.04.2026