2026:JHHC:17711 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4871 of 2025 ------- Deepak Rajak, Aged about 45 years, S/o Late Kedar Rajak, resident of New Kishore Ganj, Road No. 6/II, P.S- Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O- GPO, District- Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department (UD & HD), Government of Jharkhand, office address at 4th floor, Project Bhawan, PO+PS Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004 2. Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Urban Development & Housing Department, having office at 1st Floor, JUPMI Building, Beside H.E.C. Headquarter, PO + PS- Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, (Jharkhand). 3. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner, having office at Deputy Para, Near Kutchery Road, PO- G.P.O, P.S- Kotwali, District- Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) … … Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate For the Res.-State : Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, AC to G.P.V ------- CAV on 14.05.2026 Pronounced on 15/06/2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-11), passed by the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, by which the petitioner has been denied his genuine rights to be considered for promotion to the next higher post even after 21 years of unblemished service record. 2. Briefly stated as per pleadings, the petitioner joined Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the year 2003 in 2026:JHHC:17711 2 the post of "Kar Sangrahkarta" (Tax Collector), he gave his joining on 19.08.2003 with effect from 05.08.2003. Subsequently, the post of Tax Collector was surrendered. It has been further stated that as per the resolution/notification, the persons Working in the surrendered post shall continue to work on the said post until their service period. However, further no new appointment would be done on the surrendered post. The Revise Jharkhand Municipal Trade License Regulation, 2017, specifies the duty of Tax Daroga; which is to do site inspection on specific checkpoints given by Approval Authorities. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner is also performing the same duty. It is evident form the office memo no. 475 dated 29.03.2025 wherein the work allocation of the petitioner (Kar Sangrahkarta) and the Tax Daroga has been done under same heading by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Further, in a recent Office memo no. 636 dated 16th July 2025 where in the Ranchi Municipal Corporation while creating a team for spot inspecting of 20,000 SQ.ft and above buildings has categorically placed the Kar Sangrahkart and Tax Daroga at the same level. 2026:JHHC:17711 3 In the official online login of the petitioner, his designation has been mentioned as Tax Daroga. The Urban Development and Housing Department of Government of Jharkhand, has approved the amendments in the Municipal Service Code Rules, 2014. Further, as per the amended provisions of Rule 6.4 of Jharkhand Municipal Service Cadre Rules, 2014 for promotion of non-gazetted post of Municipal Service Cadre, Promotion Committee under the chairmanship of Director, Directorate of Urban Administration will be formed by the Department. The petitioner has regularly been representing/appealing before the respondent authorities for the grant of promotion. Earlier the Petitioner had also filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5435 of 2024 and this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 10.12.2024 along with the copy of the Court's Order dated 01.10.2024 along with all the relevant documents before the Respondent no. 2, The Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Urban Development & Housing Department. Then the respondents called the petitioner to present his case before the Director, Directorate of Municipal 2026:JHHC:17711 4 Administration on 20.02.2025 along with all relevant documents supporting his claim. Thereafter, the petitioner reported to the office of Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration on 20.02.2025 along with all the documents but no representative of the authorities/respondents were present on that day for the meeting. Similarly, on 27.03.2025 at 12:00 PM., again the petitioner reported to the office of Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration on the prescribed date on time but to the surprise of the petitioner, again the meeting was cancelled as no representative of the respondents were present for the same. During the pendency of the contempt application, the respondent no 2 passed the impugned order dated 14.05.2025, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Revenue Officer was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order itself reveals that by departmental resolution number-1949, dated-21.05.2010, it has been decided to surrender the 2026:JHHC:17711 5 post of tax collector and obtain the services of the said post from external sources on contractual basis. The employees currently working on the posts to be surrendered will remain till their service period. Thereafter, no new appointment will be made on these posts. Presently also, posts have been created in various municipal bodies by departmental resolution number- 4789, dated-27.09.2018, in which the post of tax collector has not been created under the revenue cadre. It has further been submitted that for the appointment of the Petitioner as Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, recruitment and promotion rules were not formed in the Municipal Corporation, for promotion of Tax Collector, according to clause '2' of paragraph-07 of the Departmental Resolution Number- 851, dated-03.03.2010. Further, according to sub-clause-7 (d) of clause-7 of departmental resolution-851, dated- 03.03.2010, provision has been made to provide the benefit of first/second financial upgradation scheme respectively to such employees of urban local bodies, who could not get the benefit of promotion to a higher post after their first appointment, in the next pay scale of pay scale on or after 15.11.2000 and accordingly the benefit 2026:JHHC:17711 6 of the first revised assured career advancement scheme has been provided to the petitioner from 08.05.2013. He further submitted that the impugned order clearly states that the corporation do not have any rules regarding recruitment and promotion for the petitioner's post and therefore he cannot be considered for any promotion in the next higher post, as such this is a clear- cut violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner provided by the Constitution of India under Article 14, 16(1) and 21. He further submitted that since the respondents are taking the same work from the petitioner as of a Tax Daroga which has, a proper framed promotion rules & regulation, under the given circumstances, denying the petitioner his fundamental right to get consideration for promotion is a clear-cut case of discrimination, thus, it is violation of fundamental right provided by the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the respondents may be directed to promote the petitioner to the higher post. 4. Ms. Vandana Singh, assisted by Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State had submitted that the Posts have been surrendered 2026:JHHC:17711 7 after due application of mind on account of financial distress in ULBs. The posts surrendered have been done so by Resolution dated 21.05.2010 which has been brought by the State of Jharkhand after considering the report of State Finance Commission which has categorically stated that “Keeping in view the present administrative structure and staffing pattern of ULBs in Jharkhand which is grossly inadequate and staffing pattern proposed by an expert committee in Andhra Pradesh evolve a suitable structure and staffing pattern for ULBs in Jharkhand within a period of 90 days”. Certain posts of Tax Daroga have also been surrendered which shows application of mind. Ld. Counsel further submitted that 2014 Rules of the Municipal Corporation (Jharkhand Town Planning Service, Rules, 2014) have not been challenged per se by the Petitioner therefore those cannot be questioned. The Rules 5 & 6 of the 2014 Rules establishes elaborate procedure for appointment and promotional avenues. Moreover, Resolution dated 21.05.2010 has also not been challenged by the Petitioner by which it has also been decided that persons working in the posts of “Tax Sangrakshak” will continue to be in their posts till superannuation. The posts are identified by pay bands 2026:JHHC:17711 8 and not the scope of work allotted to a particular individual(s), therefore the posts of Tax Daroga and Tax Collector are different in nature. She further submitted that there can be no vested right to absorption as decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. Versus Jagjit Singh and Others reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 at Para 44.6. Relevant paragraph is extracted herein below: “Para-44.6:- In State of Karnataka case, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularisation. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularisation. But, the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court was modified by this Court, and the daily-wage employees concerned were directed to be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the cadre concerned.” Ld. Counsel further submitted that there can also be no fundamental right to promotion as decided in Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd v Pravat Kiran Mohanty reported in (1991) 2 SCC 295. Relevant portion is extracted herein below: “4.There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an, employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner 2026:JHHC:17711 9 was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that the posts in question were surrendered by Resolution dated 21.05.2010 after due application of mind, upon consideration of the report of the State Finance Commission. The surrender of certain posts, including that of Tax Daroga, was a conscious administrative decision taken in light of financial distress in Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). This Court finds no infirmity in the said Resolution. Even otherwise, the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. Further, the Jharkhand Municipal Corporation (Town Planning Service) Rules, 2014; particularly Rules 5 and 6, lays down a detailed procedure for appointment and promotional avenues. These Rules have not been assailed per se by the petitioner, and therefore cannot be questioned indirectly in the present proceedings. 6. It is settled law that there can be no vested right to absorption or regularization in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148, para 44.6, it has been categorically held that while pay parity may be claimed if the work component is 2026:JHHC:17711 10 identical, the concept of equality does not extend to absorption or regularization. The petitioner’s claim in this regard is thus untenable. Further, the contention of the petitioner regarding promotional rights is also misconceived. The Supreme Court in the case of Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295, para 4, has held that there is no fundamental right to promotion; an employee has only the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. 7. Lastly, the Resolution dated 21.05.2010 itself provides that persons working in the posts of Tax Sangrakshak shall continue till superannuation. The posts are identified by pay bands and not by the scope of work allotted to individuals. Hence, the posts of Tax Daroga and Tax Collector are distinct in nature, and the petitioner’s claim of equivalence is unsustainable. It is pertinent to mention here that from the submissions noted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that under sub-clause 7(d) of clause-7 of Departmental Resolution No. 851 dated 03.03.2010, a clear provision exists to extend the benefit 2026:JHHC:17711 11 of first and second financial upgradation to employees of Urban Local Bodies who did not receive promotion to a higher post after their initial appointment. This benefit is to be granted in the next higher pay scale effective from 15.11.2000 onwards. In the present case, the petitioner has accordingly been extended the benefit of the 1st revised Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme with effect from 08.05.2013. 8. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A.s if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 15.06.2026 NAFR/AFR Uploaded on 19/06/2026 Fahim/-