( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 2897 of 2025 ---- Subhash Ranjan, aged about 51 years, Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Poddar, resident of Mahabir Colony, Satsang Nagar, Deoghar, P.O- Satsang, P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. The Under-Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, FFP Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O, P.S & District Deoghar, Jharkhand 6. District Transport Officer, Deoghar, P.O & P.S & District Deoghar, Jharkhand .....Respondents with Cont. Case (Civil) No. 248 of 2026 ---- Subhash Ranjan, aged about 52 years, Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Poddar, resident of Mahabir Colony, Satsang Nagar, Deoghar, P.O- Satsang, P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Besra, S/o not known to the petitioner, the Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, FFP Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. Mr. Raj Kishore Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioner, The Under- Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, FFP Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. Mr. Naman Priyesh Lakra, S/o not known to the petitioner, The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O, P.S & District Deoghar, Jharkhand 5. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Priyadarshi, S/o not known to the petitioner, District Transport Officer, Deoghar, P.O & P.S & District Deoghar, Jharkhand .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocate : Mrs. Rashi Sharma, Advocate ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 2 For the Respondents : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate --- 04/ Dated: 30.04.2026 Cont. (Cvl) Case No. 248 of 2026 1. This contempt application has been preferred by the petitioner for non-compliance of order dated 06.08.2025, wherein a direction was given to the concerned respondent that current salary of the petitioner should be paid. 2. However, after going through para-6, it appears that petitioner is getting current salary at the rate of Rs. 16,480 per month which is much less to what he was being paid earlier. 3. However, the connected writ application being W.P(S) No. 2897 of 2025 is also on board today and with consent of the parties, the same is being heard, as such this contempt application stands disposed of, in view of the fact that whatever will be the decision in the connected writ application, the petitioner would be at liberty to file any application, if the order will not be complied. W.P(S). No. 2897 of 2025 4. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of part of the order issued vide memo no. 7 dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure-15 ) to the extent that Petitioner has been reinstated on contractual basis instead of regularization of his services and also not given full back wages on the basis of no work no pay as Respondent Authority themselves admitted in this order that termination order issued vide memo no. 74 dated 23.02.2019 is illegal. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner who is working under Respondent No.6 on the post of Computer Operator-Data Entry and completed more than 20 years of service against sanctioned and vacant post and he was appointed by the competent authority in-spite of that and after the order of this Hon'ble Court passed on 18.05.2023 in W.P.(S) No. 4524 of 2018 the respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization of his service. iii. iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay full back wages to ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 3 the Petitioner for the period Petitioner remained illegally retrenched along with interest thereon @18% per annum from due date till payment of the same as Respondent Authorities have themselves admitted that termination order issued vide memo no. 74 dated 23.02.2019 is illegal. iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner in the light of Judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs Union of India and Ors. passed in SLP (C) 5580 of 2024, Shripal & Anr. Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad passed in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 19832-19838 of 2017 and also passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.4822 of 2018 dated 11.12.2024 Baleshwar Prasad Verma Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, by which Hon'ble Apex court as well as this Hon'ble Court has passed the order for regularization of those persons who have completed more than 10 years of service against sanctioned and vacant post but in spite of that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization. v. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the salary of the petitioner from the date of reinstatement till date as respondent authorities have not started to give salary to the petitioner even after reinstatement and due to this petitioner is suffering from huge financial crisis from the date of termination i.e. from 23.02.2019 to till date. 5. The petitioner earlier moved before this Court for a direction upon the respondent authorities to regularise his service who was working under respondent no. 6 to the post of Computer operator-cum-data entry operator and completed more than 10 years. 6. The said writ application bearing no. W.P.(S) No. 4524 of 2018 was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation and the respondents were directed to take decision in the matter. Thereafter, during pendency of this writ application, the petitioner was also terminated vide order dated 23.02.2019. 7. However, the concerned respondent has withdrawn that order pursuant to the order passed by this Court and reinstated the petitioner again by holding as under :- “ ঒ी. सुभाष रंजन को छोड़कर शेष 04 (चार) क̱ɗूटर ऑपरेटर वत१मान म७ काय१रत है। उपरोঢ पौरঋेশ म७ माननीय Ɋायालय Ȫारा पाौरत आदेश एवं आवेदक Ȫारा ঋˑुत दˑावेजों के अवलोकन से ˙ʼ होता है िक आवेदक-঒ी सुभाष रंजन, क̱ɗूटर ऑपरेटर (अनुबंध) की िनयु्ঢ ঴ेআीय काया१लय म७ स঴म पदािधकारी / ঋािधकार के ˑर से की गई है एवं िजला पौरवहन पदािधकारी, देवघर के आदेश ৯ापांक-74/पौर०, िदनांक-23.02.2019 के Ȫारा इनका सेवा समाɑ करना Ɋायोिचत नहीं है। अतएव आवेदक ঒ी सुभाष रंजन को िजला पौरवहन काया१लय, देवघर म७ क̱ɗूटर ऑपरेटर (अनुबंध) के ॺप म७ काय१ करने हेतु आदेश िनग१त की ितिथ से reinstate िकया जाता ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 4 है। काय१मु्ঢ से reinstate की बीच की अविध No Work No Pay के आधार पर आवेदक का कोई देय अनुमाɊ नहीं होगा। अतः िजला पौरवहन पदािधकारी, देवघर को िनदेश िदया जाता है िक उपरोঢ आदेश की अनुपालन करना सुिनिʮत कर७गे तथा पौरवहन िवभाग, झारखਔ, रांची को इस आशय की सूचना से अवगत कराते ॽए आवंटन की माँग कर७गे।“ 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, the petitioner has not been regularised, and on the hand; he is even getting lesser salary than his co-employees who are also working as data entry operator. He referred to the judgment passed by the division bench of this Court in the case of Baleshwar Prasad Verma vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P (S) No. 4822 of 2018. The division bench of this Court has held as under. Relevant para 8,9,10,11 are extracted herein below. “8. Thus, it is now well settled that an ad-hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad-hoc or temporary employee and must be replaced by a regular selected employee. In the case at hand, the petitioner who was a daily wager (on contract basis) was terminated vide Memo no. 1776 dated 28.12.2018 without issuing any show cause notice and was replaced by a new computer operator on contract basis through JAP IT which is per se illegal and arbitrary; as such, Memo no. 1776 dated 28.12.2018 passed by Respondent No. 6, whereby service of the petitioner has been terminated without any rhyme and reason, is hereby, quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. 9. Now coming to the issue of regularization, it appears from Annexure 19 & 20 of the writ application that the State of Jharkhand came out with a Notification no. 1348 dated 13.02.2015 i.e. the Regularization Rules, 2015 for regularization of service of those employees who were appointed prior to 15.11.2000 against which a writ was preferred before this Court and the matter travelled to Hon'ble Apex Court; wherein after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Regularization Rules, 2015 was amended on 20.06.2019 and cut-off date was fixed from the date of its amendment i.e. 20.06.2019; and thus, the petitioner falls under the category of getting his service regularized. 10. It further appears that the petitioner has completed more than 12 years of service before his termination on 28.12.2018. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the Judgment rendered in the case of Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that after permitting the services of large number of people for decades, it is not permissible to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create them. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: "20. But we do not see any justification for the State to take a defence that after permitting the utilisation of the services of a large number of people like the appellants for decades to say that there are no sanctioned posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven. The State has to create ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 5 them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need. 35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State." 11. In view of the above discussion and settled proposition by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also bearing in mind the fact that petitioner has completed more than 12 years of service, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for regularization of his service. Ordered accordingly. It goes without saying that since we have already held the petitioner's termination as illegal and quashed the impugned order of termination dated 28.12.2018, the respondent authority shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith and undertake the exercise of regularizing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 9. Learned counsel contended that the respondents should be directed to regularise the services of this petitioner and further the arrear of salary should be given to him since he is getting lesser salary from his co-employees. 10. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similarly situated employee namely Amit Kumar Sinha, who was also appointed on contractual basis from the same panel, pursuant to the same advertisement; has been regularised on 07.08.2023. 11. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he would verify as to whether he is getting lesser salary than his co-employees who are working on similar nature of job; the petitioner shall certainly get that salary and so far as regularisation is concerned; the respondent has taken a decision of out-sourcing the job of data-entry operator ( Annexure -B to the counter- affidavit). ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 6 It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the respondents have taken a policy decision of giving employment through “out-source agency” in petty matters and that circular has not been challenged. 12. Heard Ld. Counsels for the rival parties and perused the documents available on record. Admittedly, vide office order dated 07.01.2025, relevant portion of which has been extracted herein above; the petitioner was reinstated. It appears that the petitioner was appointed legally on a sanctioned post, though on a contractual basis. It further transpires from records that there are artificial break in service shown by the respondents in the services of the petitioner. However, this artificial break in service of any contractual employee has been condemned by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Tek Chand Vs State of Punjab and Haryana .1 and at para 27 it has been held that: “27. Thus, the first question is answered in favour of the petitioners. It is held that the State cannot deny the benefit of regularisation to an employee who has been forced to remain away from the job for more than a month on account of the action or inaction of the authority itself.” 13. Further, it has also been condemned by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo vs Union of India 2 with regard to out sourcing of contractual employee in para 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 of the said judgment. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below:- “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for fair and humane mane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union 1 MANU/PH/2704/2001 2 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 7 of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests ana interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back doc entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..." ........... 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, upholding the principles of fairness and justice, entrusted with bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences to of case, Microsoft circumvent misclassifying employees providing benefits. In this classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:  Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.  Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees dismissed are frequently without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 8  Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.  Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions resort to increasingly outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.  Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and employment. Engaging workers on a temporary stable basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the functioning, not only contravenes international organization's the labour standards but also exposes organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 14. Reference may also be made in this regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand & Other3, wherein it has been held that State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially 3 2026 SCC Online SC 129 ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 9 appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 15. Having regard to the aforesaid dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court coupled with the fact which is mentioned in the letter dated 07.01.2025 that the appointment of the petitioner was as per proper procedure at the relevant time; this Court is of the considered opinion that so far as the order for regularisation is concerned; the concerned respondent should verify the record of the case, and if at all it is an artificial break in service, then the same should be ignored, for regularising the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, for regularization, the concerned respondent shall take final decision in the light of judgment referred herein above including the judgment passed by the division bench of this Court and also the letter dated 07.01.2025; whereby his appointment was reinstated and pass an order of regularization within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. So far as, the issue of lesser salary is concerned, the learned State counsel has fairly submitted that if the petitioner is getting any lesser amount, what is being paid to the co-employees who are appointed as contractual basis like this petitioner; that will be verified and the entire arrear of that salary shall be paid from the date of reinstatement till the date of payment. 18. So far as, the issue of break in service is concerned, petitioner would also be at liberty to raise his claim before the appropriate authority and that shall be decided in accordance with the settled principle of no work no pay vis-à-vis default of either of the parties. ( 2026:JHHC:12994 ) 10 19. So far as, the argument of petitioner is concerned with regard to parity with Amit Kumar Sinha, the same shall also be considered by the concerned respondent while taking the decision for regularizing this petitioner. 20. So far as the stand of the respondent that policy decision of outsourcing the work is concerned, the respondent will have to look into the matter, the latest judgments what has been referred to herein above. 21. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed to the extent what has been observed herein above. 22. As a result the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/- Dated: 30.04.2026