[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Md. Nasiruddin Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:2663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.457 of 2026
------
Md. Nasiruddin Khan, son of Md. Mokhtar Khan, resident of Lok Bihar
Colony, Hazaribagh Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Co-ordinate Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and
Consumers Affairs, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Nalini Jha, Advocate
Mrs. Kavita Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate
------
02/ 02.02.2026
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is praying to consider
the past services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of
calculation of his post retiral benefits. He also claims penal interest
along with other consequential benefits.
3. After hearing the parties and from the records, I find that
the petitioner was working on daily wage basis on the post of Driver
in Simdega, Waterways Sub-Division, Simdega, w.e.f. 08.11.1995.
3.1. The petitioner along with others had approached this
2026:JHHC:2663
Court in the year 2010 praying for regularization by filing writ
petition being W.P.(S) No.6410 of 2010 (Sushil Lakra & Ors. Vs. State
of Jharkhand & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed by this
Court vide order dated 12.08.2011, directing the respondents to
consider the case of petitioners for regularization.
3.2. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the
respondents by an Order as contained in Memo No.1561, Ranchi,
dated 01.11.2011.
3.3. In the year 2023, the respondents issued Notification as
contained in Memo No.807/ Ranchi, dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure-5
to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was appointed
provisionally.
3.4. The petitioner tendered his joining vide letter dated
13.03.2023 (Annexure-5/A to the writ petition).
3.5. Thereafter, vide Office Order as contained in Memo
No.1189 dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the
service of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 13.03.2025.
4. The grievance of this petitioner is that he will
superannuate in the year 2029, and since he was appointed
provisionally in the year 2023 and his service was confirmed in the
year 2025, he will not get his pensionary and other benefits as it will
be treated that he has not completed ten years of service.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1272, has held that the past service as a contractual
employee is to be only taken into account, where the employees
2026:JHHC:2663
working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. Para-9
of the said judgment is as follows:-
"9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in
his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading
of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual
employees are excluded from the pale of
Pension Rules However, what is significant is
that the rule itself in its opening terms saves
the application of other provisions of the
pension rules: "Save as otherwise provided in
these rules". If the opening phrase of Rule 2
were to be understood in this context, any
interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the
State would render such substantive provision
redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially
to cater to the eventuality, where the
employees working on contract basis were
regularized at a later stage. It is only for the
purposes of pension that the past service as a
contractual employee is to be taken into
account."
5.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004, held that the State cannot be
permitted to take benefit of its own wrong. It has further been held
that to take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter
contend that an employee shall not be eligible for pension, is
unreasonable. Para-1 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to
take the services of the respondent as an ad-
hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend
that as the services rendered by the
2026:JHHC:2663
respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to
pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot
be permitted to take the benefit of its own
wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30
years and thereafter to contend that an
employee who has rendered 30 years continues
service shall not be eligible for pension is
nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State,
the State as such ought not to have taken such
a stand."
6. After hearing the parties and going through the records
of this case, I find that admittedly the petitioner was working since
1995 on daily wage basis, consequence whereof he was appointed
provisionally in the year 2023 and was confirmed in service in the
year 2025. Thus, the period which the petitioner had worked under
the respondents prior to his regularization, should be considered for
the purpose of his retiral benefits.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
02nd February, 2026
Prashant. Cp-2
Uploaded on 05.02.2026
