2025:JHHC:10140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 1641 of 2023 ----- Lt. Col. Prabhat Kumar Prasad (Retired), S/o Sri Bhagwat Prasad, R/o OIC ECHS, ECHS Polyclinic, PO & PS Saugor, District Sagar (Madhya Pradesh)-470001. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC, PO & PS - Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC PO & Ps Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Project Building HEC, PO & PS Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Director, State Sainik Welfare Directorate, Ranchi Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management having office at Sainik Market, MG Road, PO GPO, PS: Kotwali, District Ranchi. 5. Assistant Director, State Sainik Welfare Directorate, Ranchi, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, having office at Sainik Market, MG road, PO-GPO, PS- Kotwali, District-Ranchi. … Respondent(s) CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate. ------ 09 /02.04.2025: The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for salary from 01.4.2021 to 30.11.2021, that is, the period for which he has already worked. He has also prayed to quash the letter dated 12.10.2022 by which the respondents have refused his salary for the aforesaid period. 2. The petitioner is a retired army personnel. An application was invited for recruitment of Zila Sainik Kalyan Padadhikari, the petitioner applied for the same and was duly appointed. It was contractual appointment to be extended on yearly basis. The petitioner‟s term came to an end on 31.3.2021. He had applied for extension but there was no communication from the end of the respondents. On earlier occasions also the extension was post facto. The petitioner, thus, continued to work from 01.4.2021 i.e. beyond the period of his contract till 30.11.2021 when his extension was refused and, therefore, the petitioner is claiming his salary for this said period. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly his contract came to an end on 31.3.2021 and the same was not extended. The respondents admitted that the petitioner worked from 01.4.2021 till 30.11.2021 but, as per the respondents, the nature of work which was done 2025:JHHC:10140 by the petitioner is “routine work”. It is the case of the respondents that since the said period was „COVID-19‟ period, he only performed the routine work. 4. From the aforesaid submissions, the undisputed fact is that the petitioner worked from 01.4.2021 till 30.11.2021. The respondents are claiming that the petitioner had performed only routine work during the aforesaid period. Performing routine work is also rendering service by an employee. This is also an engagement. Since the respondents have taken work from the petitioner, even if, it was a routing work, they cannot deny payment for the aforesaid period. Admittedly, the petitioner was not stopped by the respondents from working immediately on expiry of the contract period, rather went on to take work from him till 30.11.2021. 5. Thus, I direct the respondents to pay the due salary of the petitioner from the period 01.4.2021 to 30.11.2021 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid direction. (ANANDA SEN, J.) KNR