Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 --------- Anita Devi, w/o late Lalan Prasad Deo, Resident of Village Kusmaha, P.O. Deopur, P.S. Jasidih, District: Deoghar . ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District Ranchi 4. The Director, Social Welfare, Jharkhand, At: Engineering Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District:Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 6. The District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S.+ District: Garhwa 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Nagar Untari, P.O. & P.S.: Nagar Untari, District: Garhwa 8. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar 9. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar at Patna. ….. Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017 --------- Parwati Devi, w/o Late Mahabir Prasad Singh, Age 70 years, Resident of Village: Birna, P.O.:Sikthi, P.S.: Dhansoi, District: Buxar (Bihar) ..… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 2 Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 3.The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District Ranchi 4.The Director, Social Welfare, Jharkhand, At: Engineering Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 5.The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, At: Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Ranchi, District: Ranchi 6.The District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S.+ District: Garhwa 7.The Child Development Project Officer, Nagar Untari, P.O. & P.S.: Nagar Untari, District: Garhwa 8.The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar 9.The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar at Patna. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(Mines)-III [In W.P.(S) No.1211 of 2017] : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II Mr. Sushant Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-II [W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017] For the Resp.No.8 &9: Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A. (Bihar) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, A.C. to G.A., Bihar --------- Judgment C.A.V. Pronounced on 11.11.2025 Both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of together as issues are common in both the writ petitions. 2. W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the original petitioner-Lalan Prasad Deo for grant of the following reliefs:- Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 3 (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of Memo No. 1591 dated 04.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-10), issued from the Office of Women, Child Development & Social Security Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, issued under the seal and signature of Director, Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand (Respondent No.4), whereby & where under the Respondent No. 4 rejected the representation of the petitioner, filed in compliance of order dated 10.07,2015 of this Hon’ble Court, passed in W.P.(S) No. 682/2013, against the observations and findings recorded by this Hon’ble Court: (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)Rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioner on the post since the date of deputation on which he was working in ICDS Project in the district of Garhwa under the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to allow the age of superannuation of the petitioner from his services on completion of the age of 60 Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 4 years as applicable to the other employees of the Govt. of Jharkhand (iv) For direction upon the respondents to pay the retiral benefits treating the age of petitioner’s superannuation as 60 years, i.e. on 31st January, 2015 and to pay the pension, arrears of pension as well as the arrears of salary which has not been given to the petitioner due to his superannuation on 58 years as well as all legally payable amount against his retirement AND (v) Pass such other writ/writs, Rules/Rules, order/orders, direction/directions, as Your Lordships may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of this case. 3. W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of the original petitioner-Mahabir Prasad Singh for grant of the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of Memo No. 1591 dated 04.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-10), issued from the Office of Women, Child Development & Social Security Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, issued under the seal and signature of Director, Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand (Respondent No.4), whereby & where under the Respondent No. 4 rejected the representation of the petitioner, filed in compliance of order dated 10.07,2015 of this Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 5 Hon’ble Court, passed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013, against the observations and findings recorded by this Hon’ble Court: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s) upon the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioner on the post since the date of deputation on which he was working in ICDS Project in the district of Garhwa under the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/order(s)/direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing upon the respondents to allow the age of superannuation of the petitioner from his services on completion of the age of 60 years as applicable to the other employees to the Govt. of Jharkhand (iii) For direction upon the respondents to pay the retiral benefits treating the age of petitioner’s superannuation as 60 years, i.e. on 31st January, 2015 and to pay the pension, arrears of pension as well as the arrears of salary with statutory interest, which has not been given to the petitioner due to his superannuation on 58 years as well as all legally payable amount against his retirement AND Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 6 (iv) Pass such other writ/writs, Rule/Rules, order/orders, direction/directions, as Your Lordships may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of this case. 4. It transpires that during pendency of W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017, original writ petitioner, namely Lalan Prasad Deo has died on 02.08.2021 and he was substituted by his wife Anita Devi vide order dated 24.08.2022, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice S.N. Pathak, as his Lordship then was) of this Court. 5. It further transpires that during pendency of W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017, original writ petitioner, namely Mahabir Prasad Singh has died on 13.06.2022 and he was substituted by his wife Parwati Devi vide order dated 13.02.2024, passed by this Court. 6. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned S.C.(Mines)-III and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned S.C.-II for the Respondent State of Jharkhand and Mr. S.P. Roy, G.A.(Bihar) for the Respondent State of Bihar. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 04.08.2016 [i.e. Annexure-10 to both W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No.179 of 2017] are perverse and have been passed not in true letter and spirit of the judgment dated 10.07.2025, passed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 (Lalan Prasad Deo & others -Vs.- The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for the same treatment and the benefits which Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 7 have been extended to the other similarly situated employees. It is submitted that the other employees of Treasury Department working in the State of Jharkhand, who were also employees of Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd. earlier, similar to the original petitioners and were taken on deputation and are being absorbed in the Jharkhand Govt. and hence, the services of the petitioners are also fit to be absorbed by the Jharkhand Govt. 8. It is submitted that similarly situated other employees, who were appointed along with the original petitioners in the State of Bihar, are enjoying the benefits of absorption who were deputed in the I.C.D.S. Project along with the original writ petitioners and hence, the petitioners are also entitled to that privilege. Further, in the facts and circumstances that in the case of other similarly situated persons Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna has given decision in favour of those employees and their case was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they were extended the benefits of absorption and as such the original petitioners are entitled to be treated at par with them. The original petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of absorption and to be treated equally to the employees of Jharkhand Govt. and entitled to enjoy the same privilege. It is submitted that the original petitioners are entitled to be superannuated after completion of 60 years of age which is applicable in the case of other employees of Govt. of Jharkhand. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 8 It is submitted that the letter of Respondent no. 7 superannuating the original petitioners after completion of 58 years of age is arbitrary, illegal and thus, fit to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the petitioners had also put forth their grievance before the authorities after knowing this fact that similarly situated employees working in Treasury are getting absorbed by the State of Jharkhand and they had also represented to the concerned authorities through their office head but the grievance of the petitioners were not looked into by the Department and the case of the original petitioners was not considered by them. 9. It is submitted that the Govt. has not taken any decision with regard to absorption and age of superannuation of the petitioners and others working in Garhwa district. The original petitioners, along with another employee had moved before this High Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 and in which after considering the rival submissions of the parties and after considering the counter affidavit/stand of the respondents, this High Court vide its judgment dated 10.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 clearly held in paragraph no.8 and 9 that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Patna High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and the resolution of the Govt. with regard to the absorption of Treasury employees (i.e. Annexure-5) and therefore, the case of the original petitioners are squarely Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 9 covered by the Annexure-5, 7 & 8 enclosed in W.P.(S) No.682 of 2013. It is submitted that this High Court had directed the respondents to take decision in the light of Annexure-5, 7 & 8 of W.P.(S) No.682 of 2013 holding the case of the petitioners squarely covered by the orders of Hon’ble Patna High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, this High Court had directed the respondents, after giving positive observations, to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Annexure-5, 7 and 8 of W.P.(S) 682 of 2013 within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. Pursuant to the order passed by this High Court the petitioners along with others approached the respondents by filing representation annexing the order passed by this Hon’ble Court but when no action was taken, then the original petitioners had filed Cont. Case (Civil) No. 89 of 2016. 10. It is submitted that the respondents filed their show-cause enclosing Memo No. 1591 dated 04.08.2016 after 11 months of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and passed a cryptic order and came to the wrong conclusion that the judgment of the Patna High Court as well as the Supreme Court are not binding upon them. Further, on the premise that Annexure-5 is the order passed with regard to only Treasury Staff, the Respondents came to the conclusion that the original petitioners’ case is not covered with the judgment of the Patna High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, giving perverse finding to these orders of this Hon’ble Court and Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 10 rejected the representation of the petitioners, by passing order like an Appellate Authority. 11. It is submitted that as the respondents, vide Memo dated 04.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-10) passed the impugned order, therefore, considering the reasoned order passed by the respondents, the High Court has dropped the contempt proceeding [Cont. Case(Civil) No. 89 of 2016] vide order dated 16.09.2016 (i.e. Annexure-11) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice D.N. Patel, as His Lordship then was) of this Court giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the respondents in accordance with law before the appropriate court, hence these writ petitions may be allowed. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned orders dated 04.08.2016, enclosed as Annexure-10 in both W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017 is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the decision as contained in Letter No. 464 dated 29.02.2012 (i.e. Anneuxre-5 to the writ petitions) as mentioned in the writ petitions is not applicable in the matter of these original petitioners and this Department. Therefore, Letter No. 464 dated 29.02.2012 (i.e. Annexure-5) does not cover the case of these petitioners. 13. It is submitted that in absence of any Rule for absorption, claim of the original petitioners is not maintainable, therefore, it is a matter of policy decision, which is required to be taken by the State Government Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 11 whether it is lawful to absorb the deputed employees of Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited to State Government Services. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Patna High Court has decided the case of those employees as per Policy Decision of the State of Bihar as contained in Memo No. 1437 dated 08.03.2006 and Memo No. 7752 dated 25.09.2002 as reflected in the internal page no. 15 of the judgment dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 (i.e. Annexure-7). However, there is no such Policy Decision of the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the original petitioners will not get any benefit from the aforesaid judgment. The Policy Decision of the State of Bihar is of the year 2006, i.e. after bifurcation of State in the year 2001 and therefore, it is not applicable in the State of Jharkhand. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief on the basis of the said judgment, which is delivered on the basis of a different fact. It is submitted that vide order dated 10.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 (i.e. Annexure-9), this High Court has been pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of Annexure-5, 7 and 8 within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order and if the decision comes in their favour, then the petitioners may be entitled to all the consequential service benefits flowing from such abruptions. 14. It is submitted that in compliance of the order of this High Court dated 10.07.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 (i.e. Annexure-9), the competent Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 12 authority, i.e. the Director, Social Welfare, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand considered the claim of the petitioners in view of the Annexure 5, 7 and 8 of the said W.P.(S) No.682 of 2013 and has rejected the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned order vide Memo No. 1591 dated 04.08.2016 [i.e. Annexure-B to the Counter Affidavit dated 16.05.2017 filed in W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017], according to law. 15. It is submitted that there is no such policy decision in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioners will not get any benefit from the aforesaid judgment. It is submitted that the Policy Decision of the State of Bihar of the year 2006 is not applicable in the State of Jharkhand and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the basis of the said judgment. Hence, there is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same may be dismissed. 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent No.8 that the Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna is not the competent authority to take decisions on the demand of the petitioners and the State of Jharkhand is the competent authority to take decisions on the demand of the petitioners, hence this writ petition may be dismissed so far respondent No.8-State of Bihar is concerned. 17. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the similarly situated persons under the similar service conditions, i.e. the employees of the Board/Corporation exactly similarly Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 13 situated to the petitioners, whose services are given in the Sahebganj district under the Women, Child Development & Social Security Section, Sahebganj have been allowed to continue in service up to 60 years, as the date of appointment of one Manmohan Prasad Singh, who had also been given on deputation in Women, Child Development & Social Security Department, Sahebganj, has been allowed to superannuate on 31.01.2016 and in this way Manmohan Prasad Singh, who is a similarly situated person to the original petitioners, had continued in service up to 60 years whereas, the petitioners have been superannuated at the age of 58 years, which is completely discriminatory and a pick & choose method has been adopted by the respondents. 18. It is further submitted that the similarly situated person, i.e. the employees of the Board/Corporation and whose services had been given on deputation in other department in the Jharkhand, under the Treasury Department and Provident Fund Department had also been discriminated and their pension and retiral benefits were not allowed/paid by the respondents. Thereafter, this High Court decided the issue in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 in case of Elecius Lakra and Others -Vs.- The State of Jharkhand vide judgment dated 31.07.2013 and the same has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2013 and analogous cases (i.e. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Vs. Dadan Prasad Singh and analogous cases) vide judgment dated 14.01.2015 and the same has been affirmed in Civil Appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 13375 of 2015 and it is held that past services Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 14 of the petitioners of those cases under the Board/Corporation, who are exactly similar to the petitioner, will be calculated and pension as well as all retiral benefits shall be paid. 19. Learned counsel for Respondent No.8 has submitted that the petitioners, i.e. Lalan Prasad Deo [i.e. original writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 and Mahavir Prasad Singh [i.e. original writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017] were employees of the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited, Bihar and were deputed as well as posted in Child Development Project Office, Nagarutari, Garhwa and Bhavnathpur, Garhwa respectively by the World Bank supported ICDS-II Project Management Cell vide order 375 dated 11.04.1997. 20. It is submitted that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the personnel were also divided and the petitioners have been working under the State of Jharkhand since then. It is submitted that the establishment and all other particulars of the petitioners were in Child Development Project Office/District Program Office of the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that total similarly placed 61 Clerks, who were deputed in the Treasury of the State of Jharkhand, have been adjusted by the resolution no. 464 dated 29.02.2012 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. Hence, these writ petitions may be allowed. 21. Perused the records of this case considered the submission of both the sides. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 15 22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it transpires that the original writ petitioners, namely Lalan Prasad Deo [in W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017] and Mahavir Prasad Singh [in W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017] were working in the Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited and they were appointed on 01.07.1982 and had worked there for around 15 years. Thereafter, in the light of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court to ensure and to take steps for filling up all the vacancies of 394 I.C.D.S Projects in the State of Bihar, the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar and Secretary of Welfare Department are said to have issued Letter dated 07.02.1996 addressed to the Secretary of different departments of the State of Bihar asking them to forward the list of surplus employees of such Corporations/Boards which were ran previously within their control. Thereafter, the original writ petitioners were called for interview vide Letter dated 10.01.1997 issued by the Additional Director, Social Welfare Department. 23. Thereafter, the original writ petitioners appeared before the Interview Board and were selected by the Welfare Department and the original petitioners along with others were sent for deputation in ICDS Project on the post of Clerk in Nagar Untari Block in Garhwa District against vacant post vide letter dated 11.04.1997 (i.e. Annexure-2). The original petitioners were also shown in the seniority list dated 04.01.2002 (i.e. Annexure-3), i.e. name of Lalan Prasad Deo [i.e. original petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017] appeared at Sr.16 and name of Mahabir Prasad Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 16 Singh [i.e. original petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017] appeared at Sr.No.15. 24. Thereafter, Lalan Prasad Deo [i.e. original writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017] was transferred from Nagar Untari to Bhawnathpur Project, whereas Mahabir Prasad Singh [original writ petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017] was transferred from Bhawnathpur to Nagar Untari. 25. The writ petitioners have raised certain contentions, which are as follows:- (i) They may be allowed to be absorbed on the post of ICDS. (ii) Respondents may be directed to allow the petitioners to work up to the age of 60 years, instead of 58 years, applicable to other employees of the State of Jharkhand (iii) To pay them retiral benefits treating the age of superannuation of the petitioners as 60 years and the date of superannuation as 31.01.2015 and to pay them pension, arrears of pension and arrears of salary. (iv) To quash the order dated 04.08.2016 by which the representation filed by the petitioners has been rejected. 26. It transpires that the original petitioners, namely Lalan Prasad Deo and Mahavir Prasad Singh and one Arvind Pandey had filed W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 before this High Court for directing the respondents to absorb them in the services on the post since the date of deputation they were working in I.C.D.S. Project in the Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 17 District of Garhwa in the Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand and also commanding upon the respondents to superannuate the original petitioners from their services on completion of 60 years as applicable to other employees of Jharkhand Government and for quashing the order dated 31.12.2012 by which the Petitioner No.3 of that writ petition, i.e. one Arvind Pandey was superannuated on 30.11.2012 after completion of the age of 58 years. 27. As Arvind Pandey has not been made party in the present writ petitions and as such that part of the order dated 10.07.2015, passed in his regard in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 will not be relevant in this case. 28. The writ petitioners in the above writ petition have taken plea for absorption of their services in the light of Annexure-5 (i.e. Memo No.464 issued on 29.02.2012 by the Govt. of Jharkhand), Annexure-7 (i.e. order dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10016 of 2007) by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and Annexure-8 [i.e. order dated 19.06.2012 passed in L.P.A. No. 1831 of 2011 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and order dated 05.10.2012 passed in S.L.A.(Civil) No.s 28310- 28311/2012] by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. The Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Pramath Patnaik, as His Lordship then was) of this Court had disposed of the W.P.(S) 682 of 2013, vide order dated 10.07.2015 with the direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners in the light of Annexure-5, 7 and 8 as follows:- Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 18 “On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the relief claimed in the writ application. Accordingly, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Annexure-5, 7 and 8 of the writ application within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order and if the decision comes in their favour, petitioners shall be entitled to all the consequential service benefits flowing from such absorptions. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 30. From perusal of order dated 10.07.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013, it appears that Annexure-5 of the said writ petition was the list of employees, who were absorbed by the Govt. of Bihar vide Letter No. 1737 dated 08.06.2006. 31. It appears that after disposal of the said writ petition, i.e. W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 on 10.07.2015 the original petitioners had filed representations and which were rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.08.2016. 32. Certain glaring facts also reveal from perusal of the impugned order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Director, Social Welfare, which are as follows:- (I) The services of the petitioners and one another employee cannot be considered for absorption because the resolution No. 464 dated 29.02.2012 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand was effective only for employees deputed in the Treasury and there was no order to absorb the Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 19 employees deputed in other departments and hence, it cannot be applicable for the deputed employees of the Women, Child Development and Social Security Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. (II) The order dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 by Patna High Court is not applicable in this case and also in view of the fact that the Department concerned has not been given opportunity to represent its case. (III) Even the order passed in L.P.A. and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by which S.L.P. was dismissed, arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 will not be effective upon the State of Jharkhand for the same reason as given with respect to order dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007. (IV) It has been clarified by Circular No. 51/V dated 08.01.2010, issued by Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand that employees of Corporation/Enterprise/Board are not Government employees and hence, they will be superannuated on completion of 58 years. (V) After critically examining the cases of petitioners, namely Lalan Prasad Deo, Mahabir Prasad Singh and said Arvind Pandey in the light of the order passed by the High Court, it was decided that their case is not covered by the order passed on 06.04.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 and on account of Resolution dated 464 of the Finance Department dated Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 20 29.02.2012 and as such, their representations were rejected. 33. It transpires that the original petitioners, namely Lalan Prasad Deo, Mahabir Prasad Singh and one Arvind Pandey had filed W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 for absorbing them in the services of the State of Jharkhand and for allowing them to work till the age of 60 years mainly on the ground that similarly situated employees of the State of Bihar had been absorbed in the services of the State of Bihar in the Department of Women and Child Welfare and Treasury Department and also on the ground that similarly situated employees had been allowed to work till the age of 60 years, however, the petitioners have not challenged the Circular No. 51/V dated 08.01.2010 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which it was decided that the employees of Board/Corporation are not Government employees. Even the petitioners have not challenged the Resolution No. 464 dated 29.02.2012 issued by the Finance Department in both these writ petitions. 34. This Court is not aware of the stand taken by the Respondent State in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013 as copies of those have not been enclosed with the writ petition. 35. Even the pleadings of these writ petitions are defective as the petitioners have not taken the name of such persons mentioned in Annexure-12 of the writ petition, who have been absorbed by the State of Bihar on 14.03.2016. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 21 36. However, it reveals that the original writ petitioners were casual employees of State of Bihar and were working in Bihar State Construction Corporation Limited and this has not been denied by the contesting Respondent No. 1 to 7 in their counter affidavit filed on 16.05.2017. 37. It further reveals from the circular No. 51 dated 08.01.2010 (i.e. Annexure-4) issued by Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand that resolution No. 5826 dated 26.10.2004, issued by Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, that by the said circular services of Government employees of the State of Jharkhand is enhanced from 58 years to 60 years but the above resolution is not applicable to the employees of Corporation/ Enterprise/ Board and hence, the employees of Corporation/ Enterprise/ Board cannot be superannuated after attaining the age of 58 years. 38. This Court further finds that the impugned order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand is not proper as he has arbitrarily and flatly observed that the order dated 06.04.2011, passed by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 and order passed in L.P.A. No.1831 of 2011 filed by the State of Bihar against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court vide order dated 19.06.2012 and the order dated Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 22 05.10.2012, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the related S.L.A(Civil) No.28330-28311/2012 are not binding in respect of State of Jharkhand and therefore, this reasoning is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. 39. It is well settled that any judicial order passed in respect of employees of parent State by the High Court will be applicable in the new State also as parties are similarly situated. Even the petitioners had given examples in the writ petition with name of the employees, who have been granted benefits after serving up to the age of 60 years. 40. It is well settled that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding in the entire country in view of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 41. It has been held in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Bansal (and other appeals), reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2693 and in the case of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Others Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366 that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be binding in all the States of India and as such the plea taken by the State of Jharkhand in this regard in the counter affidavit and also in the impugned order dated 04.08.2016 is devoid of merit. 42. It further transpires from the record that some similarly situated persons and their Union had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 before the Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 23 Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna for their absorption on such post on which they were working in the different I.C.D.S. Projects as well as in different districts offices of Bihar and at Headquarter of the Directorate of C.D.S, under the Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar and it was allowed on 06.04.2011 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court by directing the respondent State of Bihar to pass necessary order for absorption of those writ petitioners and with some direction, i.e. none of the petitioners shall be repatriated to those defunct Boards/ Corporations/ Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises, which were their parent department. 43. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the State that the State of Bihar by way of policy decision had absorbed the services and similarly situated employees in the State of Bihar, who were working in different I.C.D.S. and other various Boards, Corporations, Public Sector Enterprises etc., whereas the State of Jharkhand has taken the decision vide Circular No.51/V dated 08.01.2010 of the Finance Department that employees of Board, Public Sector Enterprises, Corporations are not government employees. However, the circular has not been challenged by the writ petitioners in these writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(S) No. 1121 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017 and also in the earlier W.P.(S) No. 682 of 2013. 44. It further transpires that Hon’ble Patna High Court has allowed the writ petition, i.e. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 24 C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007, vide order dated 06.04.2011 (i.e Annexure-7) with the following observation:- “ The Counter Affidavit is vague and evasive. Parawise reply to the statements made in Writ Application as well as Supplementary Affidavits has not been given. In general terms, it has been stated that the surplus employees brought on deputation in different Government Departments are governed by the service conditions to their parent Department. This statement is completely in contradiction to Annexure-1 as well as Annexure-5 and 6 series. Clause 2 of Annexure-1 relates to service conditions of such surplus employees, who were initially placed on deputation against the vacant posts in different treasuries and Sub- treasures, Clause- 2, Sub- Clause (2) is specific that the employees, who have been brought for absorption on deputation basis will not claim promotion to higher posts unless each such deputed employees are not absorbed against the vacant posts. Clause (6) Indicates that the performance of these employees brought on deputation will be observed for two year and finding their performance satisfactory, decision will be taken either for extension of their period of deputation or for absorption. There being clear stipulation in Annexure-1 regarding absorption, the stand taken in the Counter Affidavit can not be considered as a correct statement. Annexure-5 is the advertisement published for filing up the vacant posts in the I.C.D.S. Project, from surplus employees of different Boards and Corporations. In response to this, petitioners had applied and they were selected and appointed on deputation basis. Annexure-6 Series, which is then Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 25 appointment order is indicative of the fact that these employees will be governed by the same service conditions rules, which is applicable in case of Government employees. They will also be entitled for same benefit and relief, which is available to a State Government employee. They were also not allowed the deputation allowance. These Annexures are sufficient to show that the word "Deputation" used in Annexure-1 or Annexure-5 and 6 is not simple "Deputation", but it was deputation with a clear stipulation that their services will be absorbed. The Respondents themselves have absorbed service of similarly situated employees as per Anexure-7 series and Annexure-8, Now, they cannot deny same benefit to the petitioners, who have worked for such a long time with legitimate expectation of absorption. Petitioners have annexed the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8050 of 2003, Anexure-10, whereby in the similar circumstance, surplus employees of BISCOMAUN were directed to be absorbed, Counsel for the petitioners have also brought before this Court the order passed in a batch of Letters Patent Appeals, preferred by surplus employees of BISCOMAUN and other Boards, Corporation, who were going to be repatriated to the parent Department and whose Writ Application have been dismissed by the Single Judge. All these Letter Patent Appeals were allowed with a direction to the Respondents to absorb their services, permanently in the Department, they were working on deputation subject to this condition that they were brought on deputation, prior to cut off date of 16.11.1999. The State Government preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the orders passed in all these LPAs and the same was dismissed. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 26 I find that all petitioners who are members of petitioner No.1 "Association" as well as other petitioners, stands on similar footing as appellants of the LPA No. 608 of 2008 and its analogous appeals, as such entitled for similar relief. Accordingly the Respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 are directed to pass necessary order of absorption of all these petitioners. None of the petitioners shall be repatriated to those defunct Boards, Corporations, Public Sector Undertakings/ Enterprises, which were their parent Department. Petitioners will be allowed to superannuate from the posts, they are working. They will be paid their salary, Pensionary benefits, remaining on the same post. With these observations, this Writ application is disposed of.” 45. It further reveals that the State of Bihar had preferred L.P.A. No. 1831 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Patna High Court [against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007], which was dismissed on 19.06.2012 by the Division Bench of Patna High Court. 46. The order dated 19.06.2012 (i.e. Annexure-8) passed in L.P.A. No. 1831 of 2011 reads as follows:- “This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State of Bihar against the common judgement and order dated 6th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge insofar as C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 is allowed. The appellant State of Bihar has been directed to absorb the writ petitioners in the service of the State Government. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 27 While issuing the said direction, the learned Single Judge has followed the earlier Division Bench Judgement in the matter of Avinash Vatsyayan V. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Letters Patent Appeal No. 608 of 2006 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 7462 of 2000) and the cognate matters decided on 19th April 2010. Learned Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal has appeared for the appellant. He has not been able to distinguish the facts of the present case from that of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 608 of 2006. In view of the binding precedent, Appeal is dismissed in limine.” Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.” 47. It further transpires that prior to passing of order dated 06.04.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 (i.e. Annexure-7), one L.P.A. No. 608 of 2006 and other analogous cases, except L.P.A. No. 1110 of 2004, was allowed on 19.04.2010 (Annexure- 7/1) by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court with certain observations at Paragraph 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 as follows:- “Para 21:- Learned senior counsel for the State has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhitra Singh Vrs. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 395 for advancing and supporting the contention that the opinion of the concerned authority will amount to a decision of the Government only when it is communicated to the persons concerned. It was also submitted that as per Rules of Business that action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Governor as per well established principle of law. The Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 28 appellants have not expressed any reservation against aforesaid proposition of law as already noticed earlier. In the instant case although the decision taken at the highest level was not expressed formally as a resolution of the State Government but the same was communicated to the concerned authorities who acted upon the same. Many departments of BISCOMAUN were closed and its eligible employees were transferred to different departments for the purpose of rehabilitation and not on simple deputation. The issue, in such a situation would be, whether for non-publication of a formal "Resolution", the employees like the appellants can be made to suffer and left in lurch after many years of service under so called deputation which they accepted as a measure for their rehabilitation. On the promise made by the authorities who were competent to take such a policy decision the appellants gave of their old service and its legal benefits and opted for rehabilitation scheme which was to work under the technicality of absorption after deputation. In such circumstances, non-issuance of the requisite "Resolution" in the name of head of the State cannot be allowed to adversely affect the employees like the appellants. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in such circumstance the principle of Promissory Estoppels win come to their aid and they will have legitimate expectation of being rehabilitated against vacant posts on which they have worked for long period on being for eligible in all respects. There is no complaint that the services of the appellants were unsatisfactory. Para 22:- The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Sugar Mills Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 621 explains the meaning of promissory estoppels as a Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 29 principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice so that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear promise intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that such promise would be acted upon by the other party, the maker would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would lead to inequitable consequences having regard to dealings between the parties. The appellants did not fight for their rights against the erstwhile employer and on the promise of rehabilitation apparent from the policy which was acted upon in the past, they agreed for and accepted the transfer of their services to different departments in the garb of deputation. Equity warrants in such a situation that the State Government should complete its promise of assurance so that the appellants may be treated as employees of the concerned departments and not as mere deputationists. It is not in dispute that the appellants are in the late evening of their service life and some of them have only 2-3 years to superannuate. Para 23:- In support of the submissions based on the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Vijay Choudhary Vrs. State of Bihar and others, 1995(2) PLJR 201, In paragraph 14 of that judgement a statement of law from the Halsbury laws of England (4th Edition) Volume 1(1) 151 has been extracted and the same reads as follows;- "A person may have legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority, even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 30 treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority including an implied representation or from consistent past practice. In common parlance it means that the authority ought no to act so as to defeat the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its joining so." In the facts of the case the counsels for the appellants have rightly advanced submissions in support of case of the appellants on the basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation. Para 24:- In the right of what has been discussed and held above, it follows is a logical corollary that all the appeals must succeed except L.P.A. No. 1110 of 2004. Accordingly, the judgement and orders under challenge in other appeals are set aside. Further, the impugned orders or actions under challenge whereby the appellants have either been ordered to be repatriated or are threatened with repatriation are quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to treat the deputation of appellants not as simple deputation but one under a valid policy for the purpose of rehabilitation or absorption thorough the device of transfer of service and to take follow up action if required, within three month. The respondents will also keep in mind and act as per earlier judgements which were accepted by them and similarly situated employees were absorbed because the State and its officials i.e. the treated to respondents are duty bound to ensure equality of treatment to the appellants. Till such decision or follow up actions are taken the appellants shall be allowed to continue on the posts which they held on deputation and for practical purposes they shall be treated to be the Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 31 employees of the concerned departments where they were working on deputation. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. It is made clear that if on account of the judgement and orders under appeals any of the appellants whose appeals have been allowed have been repatriated from their posts under the State or dismissed from service, such impugned or consequential orders of repatriation or dismissal shall stand quashed and they shall be reinstated and allowed to work with all consequential benefits. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Para 25:- L.P.A No. 1110 of 2004 has to be dismissed for two reasons, Firstly, because nobody has appeared to press this appeal and secondly because the appellants of this appeal were admittedly sent on deputation in the year 2001 which was after the cutoff date of 16.11.1999 and hence their initial deputation itself was illegal and contrary to the revised policy of the State Government as per law declared for Division Bench of this Court in the Case of State of Bihar Vrs. Gopal Prasad 2003 (4) PLJR 495, Hence, while other appeals stand allowed as indicated above, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.” 48. It has been pointed out by the petitioners by filing supplementary affidavit on 04.02.2020 that one similarly situated person, namely Manmohan Prasad Singh was allowed to work up to 60 years, who was posted in Sahebganj district in the Women, Child Development and Social Security Department and he has been allowed to superannuate on 31.01.2016 and Xerox copy of extracted Service Book of said Manmohan Prasad Singh are enclosed as Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 32 Annexure 13 and 13/A to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.02.2020 filed in W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017. 49. It further reveals from the order dated 31.07.2013, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 (i.e. Annexure 14 in the supplementary affidavit) by the Co- ordinate Bench (Justice N.N. Tiwari, as His Lordship then was) of this Court that vide the said order payment of pensionary benefits and consequential benefits have been allowed to the petitioners, however, this order is not applicable to these petitioners as the Co-ordinate Bench had noticed that petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 were absorbed in District Treasury offices and they were absorbed on the basis of their past services in the Department, which was counted from the date of their joining till the date of their retirement. Later on, at the time of absorption the service conditions of the petitioners were sought to be changed to their serious prejudice denying their past continuous service and therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed to count the pensionary services from the date of initial appointment and also to count their past services for giving A.C.P. benefit/promotion. 50. The above order dated 31.07.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 was confirmed in L.P.A. No.s 340 of 2013, L.P.A. No. 357 of 2013, L.P.A.311 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 55 of 2014 by a Division Bench of this High Court. 51. It further reveals that the above L.P.A.s filed on behalf of the State, by which the State had challenged the order dated 31.07.2013 passed in Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 33 the said W.P.(S) No.1693 of 2012 in favour of the petitioners, were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.01.2015, by which claim of employees working in the Directorate of Provident Fund or in the services of Treasury are allowed in favour of the said employees for absorbing them and for granting pension from the date of their initial appointment. 52. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand had preferred Civil Appeal No.13372/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and which was dismissed on 07.09.2017. Thus, the order dated 31.07.2013, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1693 of 2012 by learned Single Judge (Justice N.N. Tiwari, as His Lordship then was) and confirmed in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2013 and other analogous cases vide order dated 14.01.2015 was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 53. It further reveals from the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.8 dated 13.05.2024 that the State of Bihar is not competent to take decision on the service condition of the original petitioners as they are employees of the State of Jharkhand. 54. Thus, the case of the petitioners cannot be distinguished from the case of the employees of the Treasury Office, who were absorbed in the services of the State of Jharkhand, however, the petitioners have not been absorbed as yet and hence, it is directed that the original petitioners, namely Late Lalan Prasad Deo [W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017] and Late Mahabir Prasad Singh [W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017] be treated to be absorbed in their services with retrospective effect from Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 34 the date of their joining till the date of their deemed superannuation and the substituted petitioners will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 55. 55. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, so far absorption of the original writ petitioners till the age of 60 years and arrears of salary is concerned the same cannot be allowed at this stage. 56. However, the original writ petitioners, namely Lalan Prasad Deo and Mahabir Prasad Singh will be entitled to be absorbed in the services of the State of Jharkhand in the light of order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, passed in L.P.A. No. 608 of 2006 and other analogous cases, except L.P.A. No. 1110 of 2004, allowed on 19.04.2010 (i.e.Annexure-7/1), order dated 06.04.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 (i.e. Anneuxre-7) and order dated 19.06.2012, passed in L.P.A. No.1831 of 2011 by Division Bench of Patna High Court (i.e. Annexure-8) and also the order dated 05.10.2012, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 28310-28311 of 2012 (i.e. Annexure-8/1) respectively. As the original writ petitioners have died and as such the substituted writ petitioners will be entitled to the payment of all the consequential benefits. 57. It is well settled from catena of decisions that if certain reliefs have been granted to similarly situated persons, then the same relief should be granted to the writ petitioners also and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the principles of natural justice demand that an employee cannot be Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 35 denied the benefits of regularisation of their services when similarly placed persons have been granted the said benefit. 58. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Banerjee Versus State of West Bengal and Others, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 93 at Paragraph nos.24, 25, 27, 28, 29 as follows:- “Para 24:- The respondent has relied on Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] judgment to contend that there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily-wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. The relevant portion of the factual position in Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is being reproduced as hereunder : (SCC pp. 19-20, para 8) “8. … the respondents therein who were temporarily engaged on daily-wages in the Commercial Taxes Department in some of the districts of the State of Karnataka claim that they worked in the Department based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence they are entitled to be made permanent employees of the Department, entitled to all the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the years 1985-1986 and in the teeth of orders not to make such appointments issued on 3-7-1984. Though the Director of Commercial Taxes recommended that they be absorbed, the Government did not accede to that recommendation. These respondents thereupon approached the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 with their claim. The Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim finding that they had not made out a right either to get wages equal to that of others regularly employed or for regularisation. Thus, the applications filed were dismissed. The respondents approached the High Court of Karnataka challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is seen that the High Court without really Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 36 coming to grips with the question falling for decision in the light of the findings of the Administrative Tribunal and the decisions of this Court, proceeded to order that they are entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. It may be noted that this gave retrospective effect to the judgment of the High Court by more than 12 years. The High Court also issued a command to the State to consider their cases for regularisation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 1-7-1984, a situation covered by the decision of this Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka [Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274] and the scheme framed pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their engagement on daily-wages and were also entitled to be considered for regularisation in their posts.” Para 25: However, in the present case, as we have observed, the appellant was appointed as a casual worker in 1991. While the services of other co-employees were regularised, that of the appellant and some others was left out. The High Court in its order dated 3-9-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 17892 of 2010 has also recorded the respondents' submissions that resolutions pertaining to the appellant's absorption are already in place and the same have been sent for necessary approval. Therefore, the judgment rendered in Umadevi [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Para 27:- The facts of U.P. SEB [U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey, (2007) 11 SCC 92 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 736] are similar to the case at hand. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder : (SCC pp. 95-96 & 99, paras 3-9 & 19) Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 37 “3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily-wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) had prayed for regularisation of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Electricity Board”). It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3-4-1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3-4-1997 is Annexure P-2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State Government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily-wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board “in the same manner and position”. 4. Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board. 5. Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28-11-1996 to regularise the services of its employees working on daily-wage basis from before 4-5-1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose. 6. The contention of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28-11-1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily-wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4-5-1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily- wage basis. 7. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21-9- 1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily-wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. 8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 38 9. The writ petitioners who were daily-wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4-5-1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board “in the same manner and position”. In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28-11-1996. *** 19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face.” Para 28:- The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit. Para 29:- Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken in the impugned judgment [Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of W.B., MAT No. 611 of 2018, order dated 10-12-2019 (Cal)] of the High Court as well as by the learned Single Judge [Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5401] in Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017. The appellant herein, in our considered opinion, is entitled to receive back wages and benefits from 1991, along with an interest of 10%. ” 59. Therefore, in view of the above and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding similarly situated person and the judgments of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10016 of 2007 (i.e. Annexure-7) and L.P.A. No. 608 of 2006 (i.e. Annexure 7/1), order dated 19.06.2012, passed in L.P.A. No.1831 of 2011 by Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court (i.e. Annexure-8) and also the order dated 05.10.2012, Neutral Citation No. (2025:JHHC:38734 ) 39 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 28310-28311 of 2012 and also in the light of Order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 340 of 2013 with L.P.A. No. 357 of 2013 with L.P.A. No.311 of 2013 with L.P.A.No.55 of 2014, affirming the judgment dated 31.07.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.1693 of 2012 the original writ petitioners are entitled to be absorbed in the services of the State Government and the substituted petitioners will be entitled to all the consequential benefits, i.e. all retiral benefits including the pensionary benefits. 60. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 04.08.2016 [i.e. Annexure-10 in both the writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017], issued under the seal and signature of Director, Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand (i.e. Respondent No.4) rejecting the representation of the petitioners is, hereby, set aside 61. Thus, these writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(S) No. 1211 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 179 of 2017 are allowed in part with the observation made above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Pronounced on 11.11.2025 A.F.R./s.m.