2025:JHHC:34059 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 1997 of 2020 ------- 1. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sri Satya Narayan Singh, aged about 51 years, Resident of P.H.E.D. Colony, Dam Side, Kanke Road, PO-Jawaharnagar, PS- Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Ashok Kumar, S/o Mohan Singh, aged about 49 years, Resident of P.H.E.D. Colony, Near Rajbhawan Section, Kanke Road, PO-Jawaharnagar, PS- Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Ashok Oraon, S/o Mahavir Oraon, aged about 37 years, Resident of Hathiya- Gonda, Kanke Road, Dam Side, PO- Gandhinagar, PS-Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Dipak Kumar Rai, S/o late Bhuneshwar Rai, aged about 47 years, Resident of P.H.E.D. Colony, Kanke Road, Dam Side, PO. Jawaharnagar, PS- Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Raju Oraon, S/o JatruOraon, aged about 43 years, Resident of Hathiya-Gonda, Kanke Road, PO- Gandhinagar, PS- Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Munna Sah, S/o Mohan Sah, aged about 47 years, Resident of P.H.E.D. Colony, Dam Side, Kanke Road, PO- Jawaharnagar, PS-Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. John Minz, S/o late Amrit Minz, aged about 50 years, Resident of Milat Colony, PO & PS- Kanke, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ………..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Additional Chief Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, Po & PS-Doranda, District- Ranchi. 2. Engineer in Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District- Ranchi. 3. Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Town Circle Ranchi, PO& PS-Sadar, District- Ranchi. 4. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Gonda Division, PO & PS- Gonda, District- Ranchi. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Anuraj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Harsh Chandra, AC to GP-IV ---- 2025:JHHC:34059 2 09/ 14.11.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs: I) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make payment of wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the department (minimum of pay scale), even though they have been granted & paid this benefit earlier, in pursuance to order dated passed 24.08.2016, passed in W.P.S. No. 688/2013, as daily wagers, but then stopped in pursuance to their placement under a Contractor/Outsource. (II) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to pay salary to the petitioners, which has been stopped, with effect from September, 2019, even though work is being taken from them, for the reasons best known to the Respondents, or may be as a measure of penalty, for they had preferred W.P.S. No. 688/2013, which was allowed with direction for making payment of minimum of pay scale, and even though such payments for the past were made as arrears, but immediately thereafter, now, the petitioners have been relegated under a contractor from their status as daily wagers, except for similarly situated other, and even in such status no payment of salary is being done. (III) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to allow minimum of pay scale to be paid to the Petitioners on monthly basis, along with Dearness Allowance, and further to release the arrears of salary equivalent to minimum pay scale, for the period September, 2019 till date, and thereafter on monthly basis, regularly. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the writ application the respondents have also stopped taking work from the petitioners; as such, the instant application may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent No. 1 by filing fresh and detailed representation along with all the relevant records in support of their claim, as the issue involved in this writ application has already been settled. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to the said prayer. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid limited submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the instant application is hereby disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh and detailed 2025:JHHC:34059 3 representation(s) annexing all the documents and judgments relied upon by them before the respondent No. 1, within a period of four weeks. If any such representation is received by the 1st respondent, he shall look into the matter and verify the records of the case and thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within a further period of twelve weeks. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 14th November, 2025 Kunal Uploaded on 19 /11 /2025