2025:JHHC:32932 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5555 of 2018 Lakshman Yadav aged about 45 years son of Late Ram Ratan Yadav resident of Dhabkhurd, P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.- Hariharganj Dist.-Palamau ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 4. The Additional Secretary (Management), Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi. 5. Chief Engineer, Medininagar, having its office at P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, Dist.-Palamau. 6. Executive Engineer, Design Division No. 1, Medininagar, having its office at P.O. & P.S. -Medininagar, Dist.-Palamau. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA-V Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V -------- Order No. 11 /Dated: 3rd November 2025 The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner working on sanctioned post of Chowkidar on Daily Wage basis since 2007-08 as the petitioner is eligible for regularization under the rules framed by the respondent authorities since the petitioner is working on a sanctioned post for last more than 10 years. And/Or (b) To decide the representation of the petitioner in relation to claim of the petitioner for regularization and to hold and declare that the petitioner is eligible for regularization. And/Or (c) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s) or direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & 2025:JHHC:32932 2 circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioners. working as chowkidar on muster roll.” 2. On 07.01.2020, this Court has directed the respondents to file specific affidavit by observing as under: “1. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he was appointed as daily wager in the year 2006-2007 but still the respondents are taking work from him and he is continuously working till date. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents have dis-engaged the petitioner from daily wage labourers. It has also not been brought on record that the petitioner is working on sanctioned and vacant post. 2. Let the additional counter affidavit be filed by the respondents to bring on record the entire details of the service of the petitioner and also whether the petitioner is on roll of wage. 3. Put up this case after three weeks.” 3. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 26.06.2023 wherein at paragraph nos. 9 and 10, it has been stated that no record of work/payment made to the petitioner was found in the office record and further in the year 2009 the record suggests that payment has been made. It has been further stated that petitioner was not engaged against the sanctioned post. For brevity paragraph nos. 9 to 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.06.2023 are extracted as under: “9. That as per the verification of the records available in the office of Executive Engineer Design Division No.1, Medininagar, it was found that there was no record of work payment made to the petitioner for the year 2006-2007 and 2008. However, the record shows that the petitioner has been paid for the work done after 1.4.2009. 10. That so far the another query asked from the answering respondents, it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner has not been engaged against the sanctioned vacant post. He was engaged as daily wages worker on muster roll as chowkidar as per need based requirement. 11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner engaged was need based engagement and there was no due procedure of appointment followed for his engagement. 12. That it is stated and submitted that the rule of regularization of the government also says that the claimant/worker must be appointed on sanctioned vacant post, the petitioner was not engaged on sanctioned vacant post rather working on need based requirement only.” Emphasis Supplied 4. Having regard to the aforesaid categorical averments, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner; however, if the Petitioner satisfies the concerned Respondent by showing his engagement prior to the period 2009 and also the fact that payment has not been made, appropriate order 2025:JHHC:32932 3 shall be passed by the concerned Respondent. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 3rd November, 2025 Amit Uploaded on 12/11/2025