[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Faghuni Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
( 2026:JHHC:1326-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 178 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 2664 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 13660 of 2024
Faghuni Ram, aged about 54 years, son of Garibi Ram, resident of Village-
Bhandar, P.O. & P.S.- Bhandar, District- Gahwa.
.... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.& P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O.& P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Garhwa, P.O.& P.S.-
Garhwa, District- Garhwa.
5. The Executive Engineer, Waterways Circle, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.- Garhwa,
District- Garhwa.
... Respondents
6. Birbal Ram, son of Prasad Ram, resident of Village- Anarajna, Nabadih,
P.O. & P.S.- Anarajna, Nabadih, District- Garhwa.
7. Ajay Chaudhary, son of Vishnu Chaudhary, resident of Village- Sahijana,
P.O. & P.S.- Sahijana, District- Gahrwa.
8. Junai Ansari @ Sheikh, son of Karmatli Seikh, resident of Village-
Anarajna, Nabadih, P.O. & P.S.- Anarajna, District- Garhwa.
.... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Sahja Nand Saraswati, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV
Mr. Anuj Bhurman, AC to GA-IV
For the Resp. Nos. 6 to 8 : Mr. Pranjal Chaturvedi, Advocate
-----
09/ 19.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judges' judgment and
order dated 13.02.2023, by which the appellant's writ petition, W.P.(S) No.
92 of 2017, seeking regularisation of his service was dismissed.
3. By I.A. No. 2664 of 2025, the appellant has sought for
condonation of delay of 630 days in instituting this appeal. We have perused
the reasons set out in this I.A. and we satisfied that in the peculiar facts of the
present case, the delay is to be condoned. The records show that the appellant
had instituted this appeal by enclosing a plain copy of the impugned order
hardly about 26 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. However,
there was some day in annexing the certified copy, resulting in the overall
delay of 630 days. Therefore, it is not assumed that the petitioner was not
diligent and was not diligently pursuing the matter. Upon the cumulative
consideration of the above facts and circumstance, we condone the delay and
dispose of I.A. No. 2664 of 2025.
4. Then, I.A. No. 13660 of 2024 seeks leave to produce certain
additional documents on record. Since with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties, we are taking up the appeal itself for consideration, we propose
to take up the I.A. for production of the documents along with the final hearing
of the appeal.
5. Insofar as the main appeal is concerned, the records show that
the appellant was engaged sometime between 1984 and 1992. His engagement
was discontinued in 1992. From 1992 onwards, until the institution of W.P.(S)
No. 92 of 2017, there are no pleadings, documents or records showing the
appellant challenging his disengagement or seeking any relief of
regularisation.
6. Thus, about 25 years after the appellant's disengagement, W.P.(S)
No. 92 of 2017 was instituted, seeking a writ for the regularisation of services.
There was no relief at all for setting aside the termination/disengagement,
perhaps realising that even such relief could be hopelessly barred by delay and
laches.
7. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, after considering
the rival contentions in great detail, has held that there is nothing on record to
show that the appellant's engagement was by some competent authority or
against any sanctioned post. That apart, what is crucial is that on the date of
institution of the petition, this petitioner-appellant was not working as a daily
wager, since his engagement had been discontinued almost 25 years earlier.
Learned Single Judge expressed inability to grant the petitioner any relief,
given these gross facts involving inordinate delay coupled with laches.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the context of I.A. No.
13660 of 2024, seeking leave to produce additional documents, referred to a
letter dated 23.06.2003, which, according to him, records that the
disengagement of the petitioner was illegal.
9. We have perused the said communication, and we do not think
that this letter declares the appellant's disengagement as illegal. This letter,
perhaps, is in response to the appellant's representation forwarded by the
Hon'ble Minister, and in this context, there is reference to the appellant's
contention about his engagement being illegal.
10. In any event, even upon most liberal reading of the
communication dated 26.03.2023, we do not think that the appellant has made
out any case for grant of regularisation of his services, when admittedly, such
services were discontinued in 1992 and the petition, in which the impugned
order has been made, was instituted only in the year 2017 i.e. 25 years later.
Besides, at this point in time and even otherwise, there are no documents to
show the genesis of the appellant's so-called entry as a daily wager. There is
no credible material or for that matter any material to show that the appellant's
entry was based upon any appointment letter issued by a competent authority
against the sanctioned post. The inaction between 1992 and 2017 is also
indicative of acquiescence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in the
case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., [2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1735] to submit that the decision in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1) is not some charter for
exploitation. Undoubtedly, Uma Devi [Supra] cannot be construed as a charter
for exploitation. However, in Dharam Singh [Supra], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dealing with the workers, who had been continued for more than a
decade, even though their appointments could at best be regarded as
'irregular' and not 'illegal'. Besides, it was not a case where the workers had
approached the Court almost 25 years after their disengagement or after
discontinuance of their services. Therefore, based upon the decision in
Dharam Singh (supra), no relief can be granted to this appellant.
12. Thus, even after considering the documents on record, including
the documents now sought to be produced by the appellant on record, we are
satisfied that there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order. There is no error in the view taken by the learned Single
Judge that calls for interference in this appeal.
13. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal and
dispose of the I.A. No. 2664 of 2025 and I.A. No. 13660 of 2024.
14. This appeal is dismissed.
15. The I.As, referred to above, are disposed of. No cost.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
January 19, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr.
Uploaded on 21.01.2026
