2026:JHHC:3416 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 769 of 2026 ------ 1. Raju Mahto, aged about 44 years, son of Dubey Mahto, R/o Village-Dhowatand, PO -Parasbani, PS-Nawadih, District- Bokaro. 2. Prakash Chandra Prasad, aged about 49 years, son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad, R/o Village-Sakhiya, PO-Oriya, PS-Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh. 3. Lal Mohan Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Tek Lal Ram, R/o Village & PO-Meru, PS-Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh. 4. Sunil Kumar Mehta, S/o Late Janki Mahto, R/o Village-Karma, PO-Juhu, PS-Padma, District-Hazaribagh. 5. Jitendra Kachhap, aged about 51 years, son of Late Chedi Kachhap, R/o Village Korra, Jabra Road, PO & PS-Korra, District- Hazaribagh. 6. Jai Narayan Mehta, aged about 54 years, son of Shri Kashi Mahto, R/o Village Bujurgnano, PO-Chuchu, PS-Ango, District- Hazaribagh. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Director, Land Records and Survey Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, PO PS and District- Hazaribagh. 5. Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, PO & PS-Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II ------ 02/ 09th February, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of petitioners is to count their past services under the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were regularized only on 2023, however, they were working since November, 2008 but their past services have not been calculated for the purpose of considering their pensionary benefits. 4. The petitioners have worked for more than 14 year and 2026:JHHC:3416 2 thereafter, they were regularized. It is admitted that they had served the respondents from November, 2008. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Gujarat Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 2004 at Paragraph No. 1 has held as under:- “1. It is unfortune that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.” Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of H.P. Vs. Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 at paragraph 9 has held as under:- “9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules: “Save as otherwise provided in these rules”. If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account.” 6. Considering the aforesaid judgments, I am of the opinion the earlier service rendered by the petitioners should be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits of the petitioners. 7. So far as the arrears of the salary is concerned, since the petitioners have been regularized in the year 2023, they cannot claim regular scale from the initial date of appointment when they were on daily wages, they are entitled to get the regular scale from the date of their regularization but so far as pensionary benefits is concerned, the period of service which they had rendered from November 2008 should be considered. 8. So far as the Pay-Scale of the petitioner is concerned, if 2026:JHHC:3416 3 the petitioner has got any grievance, they should represent before the appropriate authority. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09.02.2026 S.K.D/Cp-2 Uploaded on 12.02.2026