2025:JHHC:24347 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3232 of 2025 ---- 1. Bishakha Kumari, D/o Shankar Pramanik, R/o Pandel Kanalie (Chirudih) P.O. Putki, P.S. Putki (Kusunda), Dist Dhanbad. … Petitioner -versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, District Administration, office of Deputy Development Commissioner, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 4. MNREGA Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 5. Block Programme Officer, Block Office, Baghmara, P.O. Baghmara, P.S. Baghmara, Dist. Dhanbad. … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I ---- 04/ 11.08.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order contained in Memo No. 13- 038/Nyay/2024/Gramin Vikas (N) 467 dated 16.04.2024 passed by the MNREGA Commissioner, Dhanbad (Annexure- 8) whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for her regularization has been rejected. ii. Upon quashing the order contained in Memo No. 13-038/Nyay/2024/Gramin Vikas (N) 467 dated 16.04.2024 passed by the MNREGA Commissioner, Dhanbad, (Annexure-8) further for issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions in the nature of mandamus to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regularization. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on the post of Gramin Rozgar Sevak vide letter dated 09.09.2009 and joined the office on the same date. The petitioner has served without a single day break till 20.07.2012 and received remuneration for the same. The respondent 2025:JHHC:24347 -: 2 :- authorities had issued a letter dated 28.06.2011 stating that according to the roster, the services of the petitioner shall be taken from district pool on the basis of seriatim. The petitioner’s name was indicated in the list so prepared by the respondents but even after a lapse of more than eight years, the respondent did not call the petitioner. The petitioner submitted and got her documents verified on 29.06.2016, as directed vide letter dated 17.06.2016, but no intimation was given by the respondents. The petitioner also filed a representation dated 15.10.2019 to the respondent No.1 to consider her grievances but no action was taken. The petitioner, then, preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6093 of 2019 and the same was disposed vide order dated 17.06.2020 with a direction upon the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order within eight weeks, yet no steps were taken by the respondent-authority and petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No. 399 of 2024 which was later disposed of and was dropped by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 as the MNREGA Commissioner, Dhanbad passed an order contained in Memo No. 13-038/ Nyay/ 2024/ Gramin Vikas (N) 467 dated 16.04.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the petitioner was removed from service without any notice or show cause served and the claim for regularization has also been rejected without giving reasons. The counsel further submits that the petitioner has been unable to engage herself elsewhere in the hope that respondents shall call her. The work of several panchayats are being carried on by sevaks of other panchayats. The counsel goes on to show that the respondent authorities vide letter dated 11.09.2018 engaged the Gram Rozgar Sevak from district pool list but the case of petitioner was not considered. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the post of the petitioner is contractual in nature and is not entitled for regualrization. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner’s service was contractual in nature and MNREGA scheme being a centrally sponsored scheme will continue in the state as long as it is continued by the Central Government. Thus, due to the temporary nature of the posts, she cannot be regularized by the State Government. In the light of the provisions mentioned in the said rules, workers are appointed at the Panchayat and Block level for the successful operation of works at MNREGA. According to the Appointment, Service Conditions and 2025:JHHC:24347 -: 3 :- Duties Rules, 2007 the appointment of workers is done completely on contractual basis. Clause 11 (ka) of the said rules states that the appointments to all the posts mentioned in Appendix-I and II of the rules will be completely on the basis of contract and the government will not have any responsibility to appoint such engaged person on regular basis. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue in the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 99 has held as under:- “22. The above figures show that if the resources used for the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna were in their entirety to be used for providing full employment throughout the year, they would have given employment only to a small percentage of the population in need of income, the remaining vast majority being left with no income whatsoever. No fault could, therefore, be found with the limited object of the scheme given the limited resources at the disposal of the State. Those employed under the scheme, therefore, could not ask for more than what the scheme intended to give them. To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the scheme itself. No court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced. They will do more harm than good by depriving the many of the little income that they may get to keep them from starvation. They would benefit a few at the cost of the many starving poor for whom the schemes are meant. That would also force the State to wind up the existing schemes and forbid them from introducing the new ones, for want of resources. This is not to say that the problems of the unemployed deserve no consideration or sympathy. This is only to emphasise that even among the unemployed a distinction exists between those who live below and above the poverty line, those in need of partial and those in need of full employment, the educated and uneducated, the rural and urban unemployed etc.” 8. Furthermore, from the pleadings of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner is now no more in service. The contract is now not in existence. At present there is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. When there is no such relationship which is in existence, there cannot be any regularization. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Oshiar Prasad versus Sudamdih Coal Washery reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71, has held as under: - 2025:JHHC:24347 -: 4 :- 25. It is a settled principle of law that absorption and regularization in service can be claimed or / and granted only when the contract of employment subsists and is in force inter se employee and the employer. Once it comes to an end either by efflux of time or as per the terms of the contract of employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such event, the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end and no longer subsists except for the limited purpose to examine the legality and correctness of its termination. 9. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03