2026:JHHC:13224 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 946 of 2018 1.Ajeet Kumar Mahato aged about 37 years son of Mahendra Mahato, resident of Vill-Chamrudih P.O. & P.S.-Kharsawan, Dist. - Seraikella- Kharsawan. 2. Anand Paramanik aged about 38 years son of Govind Hazam resident of Vill-Nawadih, P.O.- Barachangru, P.S.- Silli, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. Dashrath Gope, aged about 35 years, son of Late Krishna Chandra Gope resident of Village-Tiringtipa, P.O. -Amda, P.S.-Kharsawan, Dist.- Seraikella-Kharsawan. 4. Dinesh Chandra Mahto, aged about 38 years, son of Mashusudan Mahto resident of Vill- Mundadeo, Ρ.Ο.-Galudih, P.S.-Kuchai, Dist.- Seraikella-Kharsawan. 5. Shambhu Mandal, aged about 42 years, son of Arjun Mandal resident of Village-Telo, P.O. -Telo, P.S.-Chandrapura, Dist. -Bokaro. .... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineers Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C., P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. The Director Personnel, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 4. The General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 5. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi. 6. Electrical Executive Engineer, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Bhawan, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, Advocate 2026:JHHC:13224 2 Mr. Shray Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate -------- Order No. 15/Dated: 18th April 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2017 whereby the claim of the present petitioners for regularization has been rejected even when the petitioners are fulfilling the eligibility criteria provided under Regularization Rule 2016 framed by the respondent-authorities. 2. Amongst other grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy General Manager (P) who is not the competent authority to dismiss any employee from service. As per the procedure, the Establishment Committee has to look into the matter and then recommend either for regularization or termination from service. 3. This specific stand has not been controverted by learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents simply says that after this impugned order was passed, a Committee was also constituted which has taken a decision; however, there is no such subsequent order on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are discharging their duties regularly without any break. 5. However, the said statement has been disputed by learned counsel or the respondent-JUVNL by saying that the petitioners are not in continuous service. 6. Moreover, the instant writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 17.11.2017 which is admittedly not passed by the competent authority. Accordingly, the same deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. So far as prayer for regularization of these petitioners are concerned, the respondents are directed to revisit with the issue 2026:JHHC:13224 3 involved in this case in the light of judgment passed in “Jago v. Union of India & Ors.” 1 and subsequently by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” 2. 8. While revisiting with the order, the respondents are directed to take into consideration as to whether same and similar employees have been regularized or not and take a decision having regard to the judgment referred to hereinabove. 9. The entire exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 10. The instant writ application stands allowed. 11. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 18th April 2026 Amit Uploaded on 15/05/2026 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129