2025:JHHC:11668 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1799 of 2025 --------- Sapan Pramanik, aged about 45 years, son of Late Patal Pramanik, residing at Village-Tupra, PO & PS - Pindrajora, District Bokaro, PIN 827013. ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Jharkhand, having office at 1st Floor, Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Industries, having Office at Project Building, Project Building, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Dept. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO & PS & District–Ranchi. 4. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, office at Namkom Industrial Area Lowadih, PO & PS Namkom, District Ranchi. 5. The Secretary, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, office at Namkom Industrial Area, Lowadih, PO & PS Namkom, District Ranchi. 6. The Director, Department of Industries, having Office at Nepal House, PO & PS Doranda, District Ranchi. 7. The Regional Director, Regional office, (Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority) BIADA BHAWAN, PO & PS Balidih, Bokaro. 8. The Secretary, Regional office (Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority), BIADA BHAWAN, PO & PS Balidih, Bokaro ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Mousmi Chaterjee, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Resp. Nos.4, 5, 7 & 8 : Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate --------- 02/Dated:-16.04.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the 4th Respondent to 2025:JHHC:11668 2 regularize the services of the Petitioner, who has been engaged on daily wage basis against a sanctioned vacant post of Security Guard in the Respondent-JIADA Office, Bokaro since July, 2003. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the issue raised in this application is squarely covered by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 435 of 2024 wherein the Division Bench has held at Paragraph Nos. 54, 55 and 56 as under: “54. Having regard to the judgments in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (3 supra) and in Vinod Kumar (6 supra), we are of the opinion that the utilizing the services of the appellant from 2008 (though under nomenclature of a 'daily wage' employee initially and later from 2013 as a 'contractual appointee', which appointment was infact done through a selection process adopted by the State with the Deputy Commissioner as the head of the Interview Committee), is practically indistinguishable from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk who is also engaged in doing typing on computer and data entry. 55. The principles in Uma Devi (3) (2 supra) would not be attracted and procedural formalities like nomenclature cannot be used to perpetually deny appellant's substantive right acquired through continuous service over a considerable period of time. The learned single Judge ought to have also taken note of the regularization of similarly situated persons like the petitioner in Annexure-11 which shows that the respondents had discriminated against the appellant. 56. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside; and the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the appellant as a Clerk at par with the persons regularized on 22.07.2022 vide Annexure-11 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as he has undoubtedly completed 10 years of service as on 20.6.2019 as per the Rules referred to in para 9 supra.” 4. Relying upon this order, learned counsel submits that the prayer of the Petitioner may be allowed or at least the Respondents may be directed to consider his case in the light of the judgment passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-JIADA and the Respondent-State submits that the Petitioner has not represented and at this Stage, they are not able to inform the Court about the 2025:JHHC:11668 3 stage of his regularization; however, if the petitioner will file a fresh representation to the 4th Respondent, his case will be considered in accordance with law. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the 4th Respondent to treat this writ application as representation and take a decision in the matter of regularization of the Petitioner in the light of settled proposition of law and also the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 435 of 2024. It goes without saying that since it is a matter of regularization, the decision should be taken within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to serve the copy of this writ application along with the order passed by this Court to the 4th Respondent at the earliest, for early disposal. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-