2025:JHHC:31758 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 664 of 2022 ------ 1. Farooque Khan, son of late Nezam Khan, resident of Bari Bazar, Barkandas Toli, Chaibasa, P.O Chaibasa, P.S. Chaibasa, Mufassil, District West Singhbhum. 2. Chandra Kumar Singh, son of late Jhinger Singh, resident of Tungri Road, Chaibasa, REO Colony, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S,. Sadar, District- West Singhbhum … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Govt of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Circle Chaibasa, P.O and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Circle Chaibasa, P.O and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate. For the State Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ------ 12/14.10.2025: Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been working as Chowkidar on muster roll in REO continuously from 41 and 40 years respectively. It has also been prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of minimum scale of pay of the post plus admissible allowances to the petitioners and to release all the retiral dues of the petitioners. 3. It is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been appointed in the year 1980 and 1981 respectively and they have worked as Chowkidar on muster roll in REO continuously. It is also submitted that after attaining the age of superannuation, they have been stopped from working. It is also submitted that the petitioners are entitled for entire post retiral benefits treating them to be the regular employees of the State. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have been appointed illegally, as there was no sanction posts and their appointment was without following the rules, thus the regularization of the service of the petitioners has been rejected. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had been working as Chowkidar on muster roll in REO since 1980 and 1981 and they have worked in the department for 41 and 40 years continuously. The aforesaid fact is not denied by the State. Thus defence which the State has taken on the facts of this case cannot be accepted. The State is taking a plea that the petitioners were illegally appointed. Even that being so, then why their engagement was not stopped immediately, is not explained to this Court. Further why the petitioners were allowed to work for 41 and 40 years continuously is unexplained. After taking continuous work for 40 and 41 years, the State now cannot deny payment of retiral benefits. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Leave to Appeal (C ) No. 1109 of 2022 (The State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel) has held as follows:- “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 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. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.” 7. In view of the facts of this case, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for entire post retiral benefits such as P.F, Leave Encashment, Gratuity etc. treating them to be regular employees of the State. Further if there were no sanctioned posts, two supernumerary posts be created by the State for making such payment. The respondents are further directed to pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioners within ten weeks from the date of receipt of order of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. 14th October, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 2.