2025:JHHC:14833 -: 1 :- W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 ---- Radheshyam Mandal son of Narayan Mandal, resident of Village Bara Bhalki, PO PS Bhalki, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 831002. … Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, PO PS Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, PO PS Sakchi, District East Singhbhum. 5. The Block Development Officer, Potka Block, PO PS Potka, District East Singhbhum. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C) III ---- O R D E R Reserved on 20.03.2025 Pronounced on 09.06.2025 06/ 09.06.2025 By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner since he has been working for more than 10 years on the vacant post of Computer Operator in the Potka Block Office, District East Singhbhum as a daily wage employee without any break in service. In the alternative the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to absorb the services of the petitioner on the vacant and sanctioned post or any other post, which is lying vacant suitable for the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the services on 02.03.2007 in the post of Computer Operator as a daily wage employee in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Potka Block, East Singhbhum and has been working continuously without any break in service, and getting honorarium on monthly basis. The petitioner has educational qualification up to Intermediate and is trained in Computer Operation. He is also having experience of teaching computer. The petitioner has been working since more 2025:JHHC:14833 -: 2 :- W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 than 10 years and his regular service has been recognized by the Block Development Officer, Potka Block, East Singhbhum. The petitioner had also performed election duties. Till date there is no allegation against the petitioner nor any departmental action has ever been initiated. The State of Jharkhand in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and the judgment dated 01.08.2018 passed in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari versus State of Jharkhand & Others [Civil Appeal No.7423-7429/2018] had framed a Rule of 2015, which was subsequently amended vide resolution dated 20.06.2019 vide Memo No.4871, whereby and whereunder all the contractual or daily wage employees who were working for last more than ten years as on 20.06.2019, were to be considered for their regularization of services with the concerned department. In the light of the said rules, the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand vide letter dated 12.07.2019 contained in Memo No.5535 had issued a direction to all the Departments / Commissioners / Deputy Commissioners and Chairman of Boards / Corporations to initiate the process of regularization of the services of the employees who were working for more than 10 years continuously till 20.06.2019 within a period of six months. The Additional Secretary of the State of Jharkhand vide letter dated 08.07.2019 as contained in Memo No.2149 had also issued direction to the Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers to send the details of services of those employees who are working continuously for more than ten years. The petitioner had made representations before the respondents for regularization of his service, but no action has been taken by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since there are rules framed by the State Government for regularization of services of those who are working for more than ten years regularly till 20.06.2019, the State is bound to follow the same. He claims regularization as he is continuously working as Computer Operator. The act of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner’s continuous working on daily wages does not give him any privilege or right to be regularised. He further argued that the petitioner’s appointment was not in accordance with due process of public employment, thus, it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. 4. In order to consider the arguments of the parties, I have gone 2025:JHHC:14833 -: 3 :- W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 through the records. I find that it is the claim of the petitioner that he is working for more than 10 years continuously as a Computer Operator. The fact that he is working for such a long period in the said capacity has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Further the aforesaid fact of continuous service clearly suggests that there is a need for Computer Operator and the work is permanent and perennial in nature. A work, which continues for more than ten years, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be temporary in nature. In a permanent nature of work, petitioner has been engaged. It is also clear from the writ petition that the petitioner was allowed to work on election duty also. From the pleadings, I also find that the joining letter of the petitioner is dated 02.03.2007, which is duly countersigned by the Block Development Officer. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo versus Union of India & Others [2024 INSC 1034] has considered the fact of long uninterrupted service. While considering the same, it has been held that the essence of the service must be considered in the light of integral nature of the work. In this case also I find that the nature of work is essential and integral. In today’s world computer is not a luxury, rather it is the most essential machine, which an office must possess. Each and every entries, materials and data are stored and processed in computers and a computer operator is very essential staff of the establishment. The nature of work, which he is performing cannot be said to be periodic or temporary in nature, rather it is continuous and extensive and their work is rather indispensible in nature. 6. In the aforesaid judgment of Jaggo (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken note of the judgment of Uma Devi and thereafter has held that the judgment of Uma Devi does not intend to penalize employees, who have put long years of service. It is necessary to quote paragraph 20 of the judgment in the case of Jaggo (supra) which reads as under: - 20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular”, and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged continuous, and unblemished service performing 2025:JHHC:14833 -: 4 :- W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fill squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” Further, at paragraph 22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: - 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such 2025:JHHC:14833 -: 5 :- W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. Further, at paragraph 25, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the problems and exploitations faced by a temporary employee in a Government institution. Paragraph 25 of the said judgment reads as under: - 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:  Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual”, even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.  Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.  Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.  Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.  Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, 2025:JHHC:14833 -: 6 :- W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. Subsequently at paragraph 26 also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has regretted that the principles laid down by the judgment of Uma Devi are often misinterpreted and cited to deta to indiscrimiateny legitimate claims. Paragraph 26 of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jaggo (supra) reads as under: - 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted and misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 7. In this case also, as it has been admitted that the petitioner is working since more than 10 years and the work cannot be said to be temporary in nature, rather perennial and is one of the important work in an office, thus, it is necessary to regularize the services of the petitioner. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to immediately and forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02 AFR