2025:JHHC:27622 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4173 of 2023 ----- 1. Dharmendra Kumar, aged about 50 years, Son of Ram Dip Thakur, Resident of Q.No. - D.T./1754, Sector-9, P.O & PS. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. 2. Nayeema Khatoon, aged about 48 years, W/o Md. Muslim Ansari, Resident of House No. A/5, K.G.N. Colony, Manitola, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. . 3. Manjay Parmanik, aged about 37 years, Son of Gopal Pramanik, Resident of Flat No.4/C, Ram Krishna Apartment, Shukla Colony, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi- 834002, Jharkhand. 4. Dineshwar Prasad, aged about 42 years, S/o Mahendra Prasad Prajapati, Resident of Near Sanmarg Press, Vidya Mansion, Sri Ram Path, Harmu Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali Ranchi District- Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 5. Geeta Oraon, aged about 53 years, W/o Sukhsagar Oraon, Resident of Edalhatu Road, New Area in front of Joda Pahar, Morhabadi, Ranchi, P.O. Morabadi, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi-834008, Jharkhand 6. Ragini Mishra, aged about 48 years, W/o Rajeev Thakura, R/o Behind R.K. Mission, Sita Ram Mishra, Sri Krishna Puri, P.O. Morhabadi, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi -834008, Jharkhand 7. Anil Kumar, aged about 41 years, S/o Shambhu Mandal, R/o University Quarter, Room No. A-11, Morhabadi, P.O. Morhabadi, P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi -834008, Jharkhand. 8. Vinay Kumar, aged about 36 years, S/o Jainandan Vind, R/o Near Pradhan House, Barik Toli, North Office Para, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. 9. Suman Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, S/o Gulab Chand Mahto, R/o A-12, Ranchi University Staff Quarter, Morabadi, P.O. G.P.O and P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi834008, Jharkhand. 10. Kshitij Kumar Srivastava, aged about 37 years, S/o Ramchandra Prasad Srivastava, R/o House No. 103, Ratu Road, Shastri Chowk, Madhukam Lane, Adarsh Path, P.O. G.P.O and P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi-834005, Jharkhand. 11. Amit Kumar aged about 39 years, S/o Brajnanadan Prasad Jaiswal, R/o House No. 273, Road No.2, G.R. S.E. Officer’s Colony, Near Singh More Chowk, Vikash Nagar, Hesag Hatia, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District- Ranchi-834003, Jharkhand. 12. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 43 years, S/o Sheo Prasad Vishwakarma, R/o New Colony Anand Vihar, Behind Hotel Apsara, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 13. Sanjeet Raj, aged about 40 years, S/o Uday lal, R/o 98, Nil Ratan Street, Near Ram Mandir, Upper Bazaar, P.O. -G.P.O and P.S. - Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 14. Shankar Godar, aged about 33 years, S/o Krishna Bahadur Godar, R/o 119, Janki Niwas, Basant Vihar, New Sushila Enclave, Harmu, P.O. & P.S. Harmu, District-Ranchi 834002, Jharkhand. 15. Anuj Kumar Sinha, aged about 44 years, S/o Lala Gaya Prasad, Resident of 147, Vir Kunwar Singh Colony, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. 16. Dhiraj Kumar Bedia, aged about 42 years, S/o Jagannath Manjhi, Resident of Village Sitadih, P.O.- Barwadag, P.S.- Angara, District- Ranchi-835102, Jharkhand. 2025:JHHC:27622 -: 2 :- 17. Nasima Khatoon, aged about 46 years, W/o Anis Ashraf, Resident of 17, NH-33, Near Apollo Hospital, Karma, Irba, P.O, & P.S. - Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi-835219, Jharkhand. 18. Shamsher Ali, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Alam, R/o Sattar Colony, Lane No. 5, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, DistrictRanchi-834009, Jharkhand. 19. Subhash Kachhap, aged about 41 years, S/o Bhuneshwar Oraon, R/o Prem Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District- Ranchi834006, Jharkhand. 20. Shamim Ahmad Khan, aged about 54 years, S/o Mossarat Hussain Khan, R/o Near Holiday Home, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District- Ranchi-834008, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi - 834004, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi -834004, Jharkhand. 3. Ranchi University through its Vice Chancellor, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. …Respondent(s). WITH W.P.(S) No. 5259 of 2023 ---- 1. Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o Raghuvar Singh, R/o Mount Motor Gali, Alka Puri, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi-834001. 2. Jitendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o Bhuneshvar Dev, R/o Indra Nagar, I.T.I., Behind LT.I., P.O. & P.S.-Hehal, District- Ranchi-834005. 3. Sanjay Tirkey, aged about 42 years, S/O. Kanhu Tirkey, R/o Bara Ghaghra Khushboo Toli, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002. 4. Ravindra Kumar Paswan, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Rajendra Paswan, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Hatma, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District-Ranchi -834008. 5. Santosh Kumar Mandal, aged about 41 years S/o Yogendra Mandal, R/o—Lake, Road, P.O- GPO, P.S. -— Kotwali, District- Ranchi -834001. 6. Md. Feda, aged about 46 years, S/o Kamal Uddin Mirdaha, R/o Bero, P.O& P.S.- Bero, Ghaghra, District- Ranchi - 835202. 7. Isaac Ekka, aged about 51 years, S/o Jiwan Ekka, R/o Konka Bipu Toli, Church Road, P.O, G.P.O. and P. S. -Sadar, District - Ranchi - 834001. 8. Bina Kumari, aged about 45 years, W/o Ramesh Toppo, R/o Village- Saket Nagar, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Doranda, DistrictRanchi -834002. 9. Pratima Minz, aged about 40 years, W/O Sudhir Beck, R/o Ranchi University Campus, P.O, GPO and PS- Kotwali.- District- Ranchi - 834001. 10. Md. Shamim Ansari, aged about 39 years, S/o Anwar Ansari, R/o House No.-19A, Village-Simalia, Block - Simliya, P.O. & P.S.- Kanke, District - Ranchi-835222. 11. Sarita Kachhap, aged about 35 years, W/o Etwa Kachhap, R/o House No. -79, Sakarpada Ansh Mandar, Sakarpada, P.O. Koramli & P.S. – Mandar, District- Ranchi-835205 2025:JHHC:27622 -: 3 :- 12. Jagni Kumari, aged about 47 years, W/o Suresh Minz, R/o Tunki Toli, Gitil Kocha, RIMS Road, Kokar, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi - 834009. 13. Shankar Bhandari, aged about 29 years, S/o Chiranjivi Bhandari, R/o C/7, Ranchi University Staff Quarter, Opposite Football Stadium, P.O. & P.S.- Morabadi, District- Ranchi -834008. 14. Dinesh Kumar, aged about 50 years, S/o Ram Sundar Prasad, R/o House No.-697, Buti, Maa Durga Colony, Upper Buti, Buti, P.O.-Buti & P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi - 835217. 15. Raju Bahadur aged about 48 years, S/o Late Canchha Manding R/o Ranchi University CampusMorabadi, P.O. GPO & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi - 834008. 16. Basanti Devi, aged about 33 years, W/o Late Dharam Munda, R/O Bela (Chiru Bera), Gotam Dhara to Rahe Road, Rahe, P.O. - Bansiya, P.S.- Sonahatu, District- Ranchi - 835204. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi - 834004, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Higher Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi -834004, Jharkhand. 3. Ranchi University through its Vice Chancellor, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Ranchi University, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. …Respondent(s). ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A- V Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA- V For Ranchi University: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate ---- 13/ 26.08.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of any writ/s, order/s or direction/s for quashing and setting aside the letter No. 439 dated 21.02.2023 and Letter No. 1721 dated 04/08/2023issued by the Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2) to the Registrar, Ranchi University (Respondent No.4), whereby the recommendation sent by the Respondent No.4 for pay fixation of the petitioners along with the provisional pay fixation done by the Respondent University has been erroneously rejected on arbitrary and baseless grounds even though the petitioners have already been regularized by the order passed by the University. AND 2025:JHHC:27622 -: 4 :- b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) or a writ, particularly in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondent No.2 to immediately approve the provisional pay fixation of the petitioners as done by the Respondent University (Respondent No. 4) granting benefits of the 6 and 7% Pay Revision along with all consequential benefits ; as the services of the petitioner have already been regularized by the Respondent University which is not disputed and the petitioners have been working in the University on sanctioned and vacant posts for more than 10 years. AND c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) or a writ commanding upon the Respondents to pay statutory interest to the petitioners for the delay and harassment caused to the petitioners on account of inordinate delay in pay fixation and granting the benefits of 6th and 7th Pay Revision. 2. The petitioners, except petitioner No.16 in W.P.(S) No. 5259 of 2023, (who is the wife of late Dharam Munda), are Grade-III and Grade-IV employees of Ranchi University, working in different post who were appointed between 2006 and 2011 on contractual basis. Husband of petitioner No.16 in W.P.(S) No.5259 of 2023 was a Grade IV employee on contractual basis. They worked continuously for over 10 years in vacant positions, so they demanded regularization of their services. The Director of Higher Education vide letter dated 01.06.2016 requested the University to regularize them, but the University did not act. The employees then made representation to the Chancellor, Ranchi University on 31.07.2019. Even after being directed by the OSD (J), Raj Bhawan the University did not take any action. As a result, the petitioners approached the High Court and filed separate writ petitions which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 05.09.2020, 17.12.2020 and 06.11.2020 directing the employees to submit fresh representation and asked the University to decide the claim within eight weeks. The University formed a committee on whose report approved their proposal and regularized the employees on 21.09.2021 after several meetings. After that the court allowed the employees to approach the State Government for further benefits. On 08.01.2022, Respondent No.4 sent a letter to Respondent No.2, forwarding the petitioners' list and their provisional pay details for approval under the 6% pay revision in the specified pay band.Later, the University recommended a 6% pay raise, but the Higher Education Department rejected it on 21.02.2023.Respondent No. 4, 2025:JHHC:27622 -: 5 :- dissatisfied with this rejection, again requested Respondent No. 2 to approve the pay fixation, stating that the regularization and appointments were done correctly according to the law and court judgments. Respondent No. 2 rejected it once more, saying these 36 employees were appointed temporarily and not on sanctioned posts. They also warned the University not to send such proposals for provisional pay fixation in the future. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of the petitioners’ pay fixation by Respondent No. 2 is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law because Respondent No. 2 was the authority, who asked Ranchi University to regularize the service. He further submits that according to the Jharkhand State Universities Act, the University alone has the power to hire or fire employees- not the Higher Education Department (Respondent No. 2).Further no new posts were created; the petitioners were to be regularized against existing sanctioned vacancies. He also submits that the University was satisfied that the petitioners met all criteria and made the regularization decision based on court orders. This decision of regularization of services were followed by proper procedure and was based on the petitioners meeting all eligibility criteria. He further submits that no recruitment process was initiated for these posts after their appointments.He relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradeshreported in(2023) 3 SCC 639in which it isheld that a daily wage employee working on a sanctioned post is eligible for regularization, which supports the petitioners’ case.He submits that the State has unfairly denied financial benefits to the petitioners, even though the University has already approved regularization of their services and approved their provisional pay through a proper committee. 4. The learned counsel for respondent University submits that there is no violation of Section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 in regularizing the services of non-teaching staff. This decision was taken by the University Syndicate, and in line with Supreme Court judgment. 5. Learned State counsel submits that according to the State Government, Ranchi University sent a pay fixation proposal for 20 Grade-III and 16 Grade-IV employees, but it was rejected due to the fact that some documents were missing. He also submits that University sent the proposal again, but it was rejected because the employees were not appointed against the posts approved by the State under Section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. It was found that that their appointments were 2025:JHHC:27622 -: 6 :- temporary. He further submits that as per Section 35 of the Act, no post with financial liability can be created without the State Government’s prior approval. Since the petitioners' posts were not approved by the State, they are not eligible for pay fixation benefits. 6. After hearing both the parties andupon perusal of the records, I findthat the regularization of the petitioners’ services by Ranchi University was done in accordance with law. The petitioners were working on vacant, sanctioned posts for over a decade and were found eligible by the competent authority.There is no violation of Section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, as no new posts were created. The University’s Pay Fixation Committee, a statutory body, had duly approved the pay fixation, and the proposal was submitted to the State Government for necessary sanction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo v. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826has 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.It is necessary to quote paragraph 26 of the said judgment- 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 or 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. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment and fact of this case I find that the regularization was done in accordance with the law without violating section 35 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Further they have served for considerable time in that establishment, thus as per the 2025:JHHC:27622 -: 7 :- judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court the service of employees should be regularized. Accordingly, the letter No. 439 dated 21.02.2023 and letter no. 1721 dated 04.09.2023 are quashed. Further the consequential benefits of 6th and 7th pay revision should be extended to the petitioners. The respondents are directed to ensure that pay of the petitioners should be fixed accordingly and all arrears should be paid to them. The State-respondents should also ensure that necessary funds should be sanctioned by the State in favour of the University. 8. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02