2026:JHHC:17462 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4072 of 2024 ….….. Christ Kushal Purti, aged about 52 years, son of Paulus Purti, D-63/64, resident of Vishwakarma Colony, Lal Kuan, Jaitpur, South Delhi, P.O. & P.S. Jaitpur, New Delhi. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Nepal House, P.O. Nepal House, P.S. Nepal House, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, of Personnel, Department Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, P.O. Vasant Vihar, P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. 6. The Chief Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Bhawan, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, P.O. Vasant Vihar, P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to G.A.-IV C.A.V. ON: 22/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:17462 2 a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly writ of Certiorari for quashing of Letter No. 482 dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure-11) issued by the Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Government of Jharkhand Vigilance, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for fresh appointment on the post of Protocol Assistant has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has acquired the educational qualification of 'Graduation' after the date on which the petitioner has been regularized in services. A N D b. A further writ/order or direction upon the respondents to absorb the services of the petitioner to the post of Protocol Assistant from the date of acquisition of educational qualifications and to hold and declare the Resolution as contained in Memo No. 320 dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand to the extent that the past services of the petitioner may be treated/counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits and fixation of pay notionally; AND c. Alternatively a writ/ order or direction be issued to concerned respondents to forthwith grant the pay scale to the tune of 9300-34800 Grade Pay 4200/- with effect from 01.03.2019 and upgrade the post of the petitioner from Lower Division Clerk to Assistant Protocol with all consequential benefits. And/ Or d. For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) to the Respondent authorities as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts 2026:JHHC:17462 3 and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. CASE OF THE PETITIONER 3. The petitioner was appointed against the vacant post of Protocol Assistant/ Apprentice in Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.06.2004 issued under the signature of Chief Administrative Officer, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi on temporary basis. The petitioner gave his joining on 26.06.2004 as a Protocol Assistant/ Apprentice. By an Office Order dated 28.02.2006 and 30.01.2008, Tarun Kumar and Rajesh Xalxo were appointed respectively on the vacant post of Protocol Assistant/ Apprentice on a temporary basis in the Jharkhand Bhawan. The work discharged by the Protocol Assistant/ Apprentice in the Jharkhand Bhawan was to help/ assist the officials who visit Jharkhand Bhawan, hospitality and further to arrange the transport for the officials. 4. The petitioner who was working on temporary basis had filed a writ petition along with 17 other persons being W.P. (S) No. 3973 of 2014 before this Court for regularisation of their services on the post on which they were appointed. By an order dated 03.04.2017, the writ petition was allowed. The State Government has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A No. 482 of 2017 and the same was dismissed by an order 2026:JHHC:17462 4 dated 05.12.2025. The petitioner and 17 other persons filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 704 of 2017 for non- compliance of the order dated 03.04.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3973 of 2014. 5. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the services of Tarun Kumar and Rajesh Xalxo was regularised on the post of Protocol Assistant in the pay scale 9300-34800/-, Grade Pay- 4200/- and further the date on which the services was regularised would be treated to be fresh appointment and the past services rendered on temporary basis would not be counted for seniority, pay, pension etc. 6. During the pendency of contempt petition the service of petitioner was regularised on 01.03.2019, on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale 5200-20200/-, Grade Pay- 1900/- and further the date on which the services was regularised would be treated to be fresh appointment and the past services rendered on temporary basis would not be counted for seniority, pay, pension etc. It is the case of petitioner that subsequently he has acquired the degree of graduation on 27.09.2022 and thereafter by representations dated 28.10.2022 and 17.10.2023, the petitioner has requested the Principal, Resident Commissioner, Jharkhand Bhawan, New Delhi for up-gradation on the post of Protocol Assistant as the petitioner 2026:JHHC:17462 5 was discharging the duties as the Protocol Assistant since the year 2004 and further during the service period, the petitioner has acquired the degree of graduation. However, the case of the petitioner has been rejected by a letter dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance, Government of Jharkhand. It has been contended by the petitioner at paragraph 24 of the writ petition that the petitioner has been discharging and performing the duties of Protocol Assistant, since the year 2004 till date. The paragraph 24 of the writ petition has been admitted by the State Government in their counter affidavit at paragraph 19 wherein they have categorically and unequivocally admitted that the statement made at paragraph 24 of the writ petition requires no comment. The petitioner has also made a prayer for counting the past services rendered on the post of Protocol Assistant for purposes of pensionary benefits. CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS 7. The State Government has taken a stand in their counter affidavit that the appointment was on temporary basis and the petitioner would have no claim for regularization to the post of Protocol Assistant. The petitioner possesses only intermediate degree at the time of regularization and other similarly situated employees possesses Graduate Degree at the time of regularization. 2026:JHHC:17462 6 ANALYSIS 8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, two questions fall for consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether the past services of the petitioner is to be factored in for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularized on the post of Protocol Assistant and granted all consequential benefits with effect from 01.03.2019, i.e. the date when other similarly situated persons were regularised on the said post ? Issue no. (I) 9. In so far as the question relating to counting of the past services of the petitioner, for the purposes of pensionary benefits is concerned, the law on this subject is no more res- integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another versus Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 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.” Emphasis Supplied 10. In the case of S.D Jayaprakash and Others versus Union of India and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973 the Supreme Court has held as under :- “9. In light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules 2026:JHHC:17462 7 as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants' regularisation in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. In line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the Rules” 11. In view of the above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the only conclusion in respect of computation of pensionary benefits by factoring in the past service of the petitioner while he was in service as irregular has to be considered and therefore, it must be held and directed that the past services rendered by the petitioner must be taken into account for the purpose of grant of pensionary and all consequential benefits. Issue No. (II) 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has been discharging the duties of a Protocol Assistant since the year 2004. It was the specific case of the petitioner that despite his service is being regularised with effect from 01.03.2019 on the post of Lower Division Clerk, he continued to perform the duties of a Protocol Assistant even thereafter. The above contention of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit and reference in this context may be made to paragraph 24 of the writ petition and paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner has been discharging the functions of a Protocol 2026:JHHC:17462 8 Assistant since the year 2004, till date. The only reason for denying the petitioner post of a Protocol Assistant, as mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, is that the petitioner had obtained the educational qualification of graduation subsequent to the regularisation of his services on 01.03.2019. 13. The competence of the petitioner to perform the duties of a Protocol Assistant, his past service record, availability of a sanctioned post are not in question. While it is true that regularisation can be made on a post for which the person sought to be regularized must possess the basic eligibility qualifications, but on the other hand to deny a person who has been performing his duties diligently, and with almost sincerity and integrity on the ground that the acquisition of the requisite educational qualification is subsequent to the date of regularisation would also result in grave injustice and manifest arbitrariness. 14. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has since acquired a degree of post-graduation from a recognized University and coupled with the fact that he has been continuously performing the duties of Protocol Assistant, there cannot be any reason not to treat him and grant him the benefit of up-gradation to the post of a Protocol Assistant, at least from the date on which he acquired a Post-Graduation degree that is 27.09.2022. 2026:JHHC:17462 9 15. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to be regularised on the post of Protocol Assistant with effect from 01.03.2019 cannot even be considered on the ground of sympathy or equity. However, as noted in answer to the issue no. (I), the past service of the petitioner will be counted towards the grant of pensionary benefits and therefore, his services up to 01.03.2019 that is during the period when services was irregular and also during the period, his services regularised must be factored in and computed for the grant of pensionary, seniority and other service benefits, including increments etc. against the post of Protocol Assistant. 16. However, the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is set-aside to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequent benefits from the date of acquisition of a post- graduation degree and the respondents be directed to issue an order posting him on the post of Protocol Assistant from 27.09.2022 and grant him all consequential benefits of the said post from that date. 17. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/06/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R Uploaded on 17.06.2026