Sangeeta Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 282 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sangeeta Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                             2026:JHHC:1539

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 543 of 2020
                                .........

Sangeeta Toppo, Aged about 42 years, w/o Sri Pankaj Kumar, resident of village-Karamtoli, 1st Street, Near Dulia Medicare, Ranchi, P.O.-Morhabadi, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi. ..... Petitioner (s) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Principal Secretary Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand having office at FFP Building HEC area, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.

4. Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at FFP Building HEC area, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.

5.The Chairman cum Secretary cum State Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Jharkhand having office at FFP Building HEC area, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.

6. The District Transport Officer, Ranchi.

..... Respondent(s) .........

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

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I .........

C.A.V. ON 07/01/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:19/01/2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioner praying therein for quashing of the Letter No. 238

dated 30.01.2019, issued under the signature of the Joint

Secretary, Transport Department, Government of

Jharkhand (Annexure-4), whereby the respondents have

rejected the petitioner's claim for regularization of service.

2026:JHHC:1539

The petitioner has further prayed for a consequential

direction upon the respondents to reconsider and decide

her claim for regularization in a fair, lawful, and non-

arbitrary manner, in accordance with constitutional

principles and settled law.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she has been

continuously working as a Computer Operator in the office

of the respondent-Transport Department since 31.03.2004,

initially on daily wage basis. Her engagement and

continuance are duly evidenced by official communications

including Letter No. 1802 dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure-1).

From the very inception of her engagement, the

petitioner has discharged her duties continuously,

efficiently, and without any interruption, as reflected from

Letter dated 20.08.2004 (Annexure-2). There has never

been any allegation regarding her conduct, competence, or

performance.

Recognizing the petitioner's long and satisfactory

service, the concerned District Transport Officers

repeatedly recommended her case for regularization, vide

Letter Nos. 1513 dated 15.05.2004, 1544 dated

19.05.2004, and 1285 dated 06.05.2005, which were later

reiterated in Letter No. 1802 dated 07.08.2007. Despite

such consistent recommendations, no decision was taken

2026:JHHC:1539

by the higher authorities.

4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was

engaged through an outsourcing agency, and that the post

of Computer Operator is allegedly not a sanctioned post.

It is contended that although the petitioner was

engaged on the recommendation of the District Transport

Officer with effect from 31.03.2004, no formal sanction was

obtained from the competent authority, and therefore her

engagement does not fall within the scope of regularization

under the Jharkhand Service Regularization Rules, 2015.

It has been further argued that upon consideration by

the departmental Committee, the petitioner's case was

rejected on the ground that it does not fall within the

definition of "employee" under Rule 2 of the said Rules,

leading to issuance of the impugned letter.

5. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after

going through the documents annexed with the respective

affidavits it is evident that vide Letter No. 340 dated

15.03.2007, the Transport Department sanctioned 11 posts

of Computer Operators on contractual basis for newly

created districts. However, these sanctioned posts were

never filled up, and the work continues to be performed

through outsourced arrangements. In contrast, in older

districts, the respondents continued to extract identical

2026:JHHC:1539

work from persons like the petitioner on daily

wage/contractual arrangements for decades.

6. Aggrieved by the prolonged inaction, the petitioner

had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No.

5323 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated

17.12.2018, directing the respondents to examine the

petitioner's status and to pass a reasoned and speaking

order within a stipulated period (Annexure-3).

In purported compliance of the said order, the

respondents issued Letter No. 238 dated 30.01.2019,

rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization on

technical grounds. The said letter is the impugned order in

the present writ petition.

7. It is further evident from records that the respondents

have categorically admitted that the petitioner has been

working continuously since 31.03.2004. Her engagement

now spans over two decades, which by itself establishes

that the work performed by her is perennial, regular, and

essential to the functioning of the Transport Department.

Such prolonged engagement cannot, by any stretch of

reasoning, be termed temporary, casual, or intermittent.

The nature of duties discharged by the petitioner clearly

demonstrates an existing and continuing functional

requirement of the department.

2026:JHHC:1539

8. The impugned Letter No. 238 dated 30.01.2019

suffers from patent self-contradiction. While acknowledging

that the petitioner has been continuously working since

2004, the respondents deny regularization by branding her

as an outsourced worker. This internally inconsistent

reasoning renders the decision arbitrary, non-reasoned,

and legally unsustainable.

Such an approach reflects non-application of mind

and defeats the very purpose of the earlier judicial direction

to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

9. The respondents'reliance on outsourcing as a ground

for denial is wholly misconceived. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of

U.P.,1 has categorically held that outsourcing cannot be

used as a device to perpetuate insecure and exploitative

employment where the work is permanent and regular in

nature.

In the present case, the petitioner has been working

under the direct control, supervision, and discipline of the

Transport Department, performing core departmental

functions indispensable to its day-to-day operations. The

mere nomenclature of "outsourcing" cannot dilute the true

nature of her engagement.

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

2026:JHHC:1539

10. The plea that the post of Computer Operator is not

sanctioned is equally untenable. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has consistently held that the State cannot take

advantage of its own failure to create or sanction posts,

despite longstanding and admitted functional necessity.

Where the State has extracted work for years together,

denial of regularization on the ground of non-sanction

amounts to institutional arbitrariness and unfair labour

practice.

11. The present case does not involve any illegal or

backdoor appointment. The petitioner was engaged against

a genuine requirement, has rendered long and blemish-free

service, and her engagement was known and acknowledged

by the authorities.

The judgment in the case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka v. Umadevi,2 cannot be mechanically applied

to deny relief in cases of irregular but long-continued

employment, especially where the State itself has failed to

streamline its recruitment process despite repeated judicial

pronouncements.

12. The continued extraction of work from the petitioner

for decades without regularization violates Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution by treating her unequally vis-à-vis

(2006) 4 SCC 1

2026:JHHC:1539

similarly situated employees and by denying equal

opportunity in public employment.

Further, such prolonged insecurity of tenure violates

Article 21, as it deprives the petitioner of dignity, livelihood,

and social security. The State, as a model constitutional

employer, cannot sacrifice fundamental rights at the altar

of administrative convenience.

13. Furthermore, although this Court had directed the

respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order, the

impugned decision merely reiterates technical objections

without addressing the substance, equity and

constitutional dimensions of the petitioner's claim.

Such mechanical compliance frustrates the purpose of

judicial review and is contrary to the settled principles of

fair, transparent, and accountable decision-making.

14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case and the discussions made

hereinabove, this Court holds that the impugned Letter No.

238 dated 30.01.2019 is arbitrary, unconstitutional and

unsustainable in law, and deserves to be, and, is hereby,

quashed and set-aside.

Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed to

regularize the services of the petitioner and pay her due

salary and all consequential benefits. The entire exercise

2026:JHHC:1539

shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

15. As a result, the instant writ application stands

allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:19/01/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R./N.A.F.R.

Uploaded 21/01/2026