[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Yamuna Vishwakarma on 18 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.457 of 2025
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Divisional Commissioner of Palamu Commissionary,
Palamu.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa.
4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Garhwa.
5. The Block Development Officer, Chinia, District Garhwa.
.......... Appellants.
-Versus-
Yamuna Vishwakarma, son of Late Ram Ghulam Vishwakarma,
resident of village Nawada Badhmanwa, P.O. Nawada, P.S. &
District Garhwa.
.......... Respondent.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
For the Respondent:
-----
Reserved on 09.02.2026 Pronounced on 18.02.2026
Per: Rajesh Shankar, J.
I.A. No.10542 of 2025:
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 133 days in
filing the present appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being
satisfied with the reasons set out in the present interlocutory
application, the said delay in filing the present appeal is hereby
condoned.
3. I.A. No.10542 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.
L.P.A. No.457 of 2025:
4. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the
order/judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(S) No. 268 of 2024, whereby the order dated
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
06.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa
(appellant no.3 herein) has been quashed and set aside, directing
the said appellant to consider the case of the writ
petitioner/respondent for regularization from the date of his initial
appointment.
5. The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner is as under:-
(i) A letter vide Memo No. 243 dated 26.08.2003 was issued
by the appellant no. 3 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer,
Nagar Untari was permitted to appoint Jeep Driver on daily
wages for a contractual period of three months for driving
the departmental vehicle of Land Reforms Deputy
Collector, Nagar Untari. Pursuant to the said direction, the
writ petitioner was appointed on the post of jeep driver for
a period of three months from 01.09.2003 to 30.11.2003
on daily wages of Rs.74.55 per day vide order dated
01.12.2003 issued by the Circle Officer, Chiniya.
(ii) The writ petitioner continued to perform the duty against
vacant and sanctioned post of driver and time to time he
was asked to perform his duty at several places.
(iii) A letter bearing No. 2405 dated 14.03.2003 was
issued under the signature of the Principal
Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the Principal Secretary/
Secretary/Head of all the departments and all the
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
Divisional Commissioners of the State of Jharkhand were
requested to send the desired information in the prescribed
format regarding the drivers who were working on daily
wages/contract basis.
(iv) Thereafter, the office of the appellant no.3 issued direction
under the signature of the appellant no.4 vide letter dated
25.02.2014 to all Sub Divisional
Officers, Block Development Officers and Circle Officers of
Garhwa district, asking them to send the desired
information in prescribed format with respect to the drivers
who were working on contract or daily wages. Pursuant to
the said direction, the Block Development Officer, Chiniya
sent detailed information of the writ petitioner to the
appellant no.4 vide memo no. 157 dated 28.03.2014
stating that he had been working as driver on daily wages
since 01.09.2003 and his total period of service rendered
was 11 years 06 months, however, no step was taken by
the appellant no.3 to regularize his service.
(v) Subsequently, vide Letter No. 66 dated 21.01.2016 issued
under the signature of the appellant no.4, a list of the
persons working on daily wages or on contractual basis
was again demanded pursuant to which the Block
Development Officer, Chiniya vide Letter No. 818
dated 24.10.2016 sent him a chart of daily wages
employees and in the said chart the name of the writ
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
petitioner was mentioned at Serial No.1, however no
further step was taken for regularization of his service.
(vi) After few years, a letter bearing No.381 dated 03.08.2019
was issued by the appellant no.3, asking all the office
heads of Collectorate Cadre within the district of Garhwa
to send list of irregularly appointed employees working
under the Government in terms with the Jharkhand
Regularization of Services of Irregularly Appointed and
Working Employees Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2019). In
response to the said letter, the Block Development Officer,
Chiniya vide Letter No. 400 dated 19.09.2019 sent the
name of the writ petitioner for regularization of his service
providing detailed information that his total period of
service rendered till 20.06.2019 was 16 years and 09
months, however the services of the writ petitioner was
not regularized at that stage also.
(vii) The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.5972 of 2022 seeking regularization of his service on
the post of driver. The said writ petition was disposed of
vide order dated 05.12.2022 permitting the writ
petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before the
appellant no.3 who in turn was directed to consider his
case by passing a reasoned order as per law. It was further
held, inter alia, that since the petitioner was appointed
against the sanctioned and vacant post, he would not be
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
removed from service even if the order was not passed in
his favour.
(viii) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to the
appellant no. 3 on 26.12.2022, seeking consideration of his
case for regularization of service, however, the same was
rejected by the said appellant vide order dated 10.07.2023.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt case being
Contempt Case (Civil) No.344 of 2023, wherein vide an
interim order dated 08.09.2023, the appellant no.3 was
directed to revisit the order dated 10.07.2023. In
pursuance of the said direction, the appellant no.3 passed
the reasoned order on 06.12.2023 whereby the claim of
the petitioner was again rejected. Subsequently it was
submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant no.3 that the order dated 05.12.2022 passed
in W.P.(S) No.5972 of 2022 was complied. Accordingly, the
Contempt proceeding was dropped vide order dated
08.12.2023, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to take
appropriate recourse against the aforesaid reasoned order.
6. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed another writ petition being
W.P.(S) No.268 of 2024 challenging the order dated 06.12.2003
passed by the appellant no.3. The said writ petition was allowed
on 13.08.2024 by quashing and setting aside the order dated
06.12.2023 passed by the appellant no.3 and directing the said
appellant to again consider the case of the writ petitioner for
regularization of service from the date of his initial appointment.
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appointment of the writ petitioner was not done by a competent
authority, rather he was appointed by the Circle Officer, Chiniya,
who was not the competent authority, and as such the appellant
no. 3 had rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for
regularization of his service.
8. It is also submitted that the appointment order of the writ
petitioner contained a reference of the letter no.243 dated
26.08.2003 issued by the appellant no.3. However, the said letter
did not confer any power to the Circle Officer, Chiniya to issue
appointment letter to the writ petitioner, rather by the said letter,
the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari was authorized to make
appointment of Jeep driver only on daily wages for a period of
three months to drive the official vehicle of Land Reforms Deputy
Collector, Nagar Untari.
9. It is further submitted that neither any public notice/
advertisement was issued nor names were called from the
employment exchange before making appointment of the writ
petitioner on the post of driver and as such his appointment was
completely illegal, which cannot be regularized.
10. It is argued that in view of the regularization policy of the State
of Jharkhand as contained in notification no.4871 dated
20.06.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, irregular appointments made by the authorities not
competent to do so, cannot be regularized.
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
11. It is also urged that even otherwise, the appointment of the writ
petitioner was purely contractual in nature and as such he cannot
claim any right to be regularized.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
impugned judgement.
13. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held
that the writ petitioner has been working on a vacant and
sanctioned post of driver for more than 20 years and his
appointment was not illegal, rather it could comfortably be
termed to be an irregular appointment and as such he was
entitled to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants has given much emphasis to
the argument that the appointment of the writ petitioner as a
driver was not made by the competent authority and as such he
was not entitled to be regularized on the said post.
15. For better appreciation of the contention of the appellants, it
would be profitable to refer few judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court laying down the guidelines for regularization of
irregular appointments.
16. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs.
Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under: -
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967)
1 SCR 128] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409]
and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507] and referred to
in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more
but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services
of such employees may have to be considered on merits
in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment.
In that context, the Union of India, the State
Governments and their instrumentalities should take
steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken
to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily
wagers are being now employed. The process must be
set in motion within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not
sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of
the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme."
17. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of
Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose and intent of
the decision rendered in the case of Umadevi (3) (Supra) was
to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and to
confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in
the past. It has further been held that the State of Jharkhand
having continued with the irregular appointments for almost a
decade even after the decision in Umadevi (3), is a clear
indication of it believing that it was fine to continue with irregular
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
appointments, and whenever required, to terminate the services
of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they
were irregularly appointed. The said action of the State is nothing
but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them
the benefits of regularisation and placing the sword of Damocles
over their heads. Their Lordships have also observed that the
Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation
and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on
the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, should be
regularised unless there is some valid objection to their
regularisation like misconduct, etc.
18. Thus, it is no more res integra that a contractual or daily wages
employee who has worked against a duly sanctioned vacant post
for more than 10 years by the date on which the regularization
rules is made, is entitled for regularization in service.
19. In a recent decision i.e., Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand
& Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has directed the State to forthwith regularize the
services of all the appellants of that case against the sanctioned
posts to which they were initially appointed by holding that the
respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants
on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the
nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying
them consideration for regularization. Abrupt discontinuance of
such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution.
20. Reverting back to the case in hand. we have perused the letter
no.243 dated 26.08.2003 which was issued by the appellant no.3
to Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari granting permission to
keep Jeep driver on daily wages/contract basis renewable on
every three months till the appointment of regular driver for
driving the departmental vehicle of the Land Reforms Deputy
Collector, Nagar Untari. Thus, the contractual period was
extendable on quarterly basis. Though the said letter was
addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, the copies
of the same were also forwarded to all the Block Development
Officers and Circle Officers posted in Garhwa district for
information and necessary action.
21. In the aforesaid letter, it was not specifically stated that the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari would only be the competent
authority to appoint the Jeep driver on contract basis, rather from
the content of the said letter, it appears that even the Circle
Officer(s) were authorized for such appointment.
22. Moreover, on perusal of the content of the letter dated
01.12.2003 of the Circle Officer, Chiniya, it would be evident that
the said letter was issued to the writ petitioner appointing him as
Jeep driver on contract basis for three months i.e. from
01.09.2003 to 30.11.2003 in the light of direction issued by the
appellant no.3 vide letter no.243 dated 26.08.2003.
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
23. It is an admitted fact that after the appointment of the writ
petitioner on contractual basis, he worked for more than 20 years
on the vacant and sanctioned post of driver and served in the
office of Circle Office, Chiniya as well as Block Office, Chiniya. It
is also not the contention of the appellants that the writ petitioner
did not have requisite qualification for being regularized on the
post of driver. Even during his entire service tenure, none of the
officers under whom he served, raised objection regarding
validity of his appointment. Though the contention of the
appellants is that the Circle Officer, Chiniya had illegally appointed
the writ petitioner on the post of driver on contract basis, yet they
are unable to explain as to what action was taken by them against
the concerned Circle Officer if at all, according to them,
appointment of the writ petitioner was illegal.
24. The learned counsel for the appellants has put reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639. We have perused the
said judgment. However, in the said case, the appellant was not
appointed against sanctioned post and as such his claim for
regularization was rejected.
25. In the case in hand, the writ petitioner was appointed against
sanctioned vacant post pursuant to the direction issued by the
competent authority. As such, the facts situation of the present
case is completely different from the case cited by the learned
2026:JHHC:4670-DB
counsel for the appellants. Thus, the said judgment will not be
applicable in the facts of the present case.
26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated
13.08.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 268 of 2024.
27. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
28. Other pending I.A.(s), if any, are also dismissed.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
18th February, 2026
Sanjay/
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 18.02.2026
