2026:JHHC:20414 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3090 of 2025 ….….. Santosh Kumar, aged about 61 years, S/o- Late Laldeo Sharma, R/o Hutup, P.O. Irba, & P.S. Ormanjhi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..… Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.The Secretary, Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. &P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Officiating at Project Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Officiating at Project Building, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Director, Social Welfare Directorate, Women, Children Development & Social Security Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Officiating at Project Building, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. The Assistant Director, Provident fund Directorate,Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Officiating at Project Building, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 7. The Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 8. The District Provident Fund Officer, Ramgarh, Officiating at Ground Floor, Sub- Divisional Office Building P.O., P.S. & District Ramgarh. ..... Respondent(s) ….…. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Singh, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C.to AAG-III ….….. C.A.V. ON: 03/07/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:10/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by 2026:JHHC:20414 2 the petitioner for the following reliefs; i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of the reasoned Order dated 01.11.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2contained in memo no. 2767 dated 04.11.2024(Annexure-15) whereby and where under the claim of the Petitioner for absorption/regularization of his service in the state cadre has been rejected and reasons assigned therein for rejecting the said claim of Petitioner is erroneous, unreasonable, whimsical and arbitrary; ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter as contained in Memo No. 95 dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure-9) passed by Respondent No. 5, whereby and where under the respondents have denied the absorption of the employees of Corporation/Bodies/Board in the state cadre. iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of mandamus commanding upon respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for absorption/regularization to the post of Clerk- typist w.e.f. the date of joining in the Chotanagpur Regional Weaver Cooperative Society, Erba, Ranchi or w.e.f. the date of deputation in Social Welfare Department w.e.f. 15.04.1997 and count the service rendered by the Petitioner in the Cooperative Society and to pay forthwith the retirement benefits including pension with all consequential benefits and with statutory interest. And/or To grant such relief/ reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to do conscionable justice to the Petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case as canvassed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner was appointed on 01.02.1983, but pursuant to a policy decision by the State of Bihar vide Letter No. 447 dated 24.08.1996, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Chhotanagpur Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Limited for deputation in the Social Welfare Department and he was sent to Chouparan, Hazaribagh as clerk on 21.03.1997. Thereafter, vide Letter No. 1287 dated 09.10.2006, the Social Welfare, Women & Child Welfare Department sought the list of employees of the Cooperative society who were working on deputation to consider their case for adjustment in the Department. Though the name 2026:JHHC:20414 3 of the petitioner was recommended to Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare Department, but all in vain. 4. Further, vide Memo dated 24.01.2022 issued by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand informed the District Social Welfare Officers that the employees of corporation/bodies/board who have not been absorbed till date cannot be treated as employees of the State Government. Besides this, vide Memo dated 10.03.2022, the Chhotanagpur Cooperative Society, Erba, Ranchi fixed the age of superannuation of its employees at 60 years. However, the petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years only, instead of 60 years, against which the District Provident Fund Officer made an enquiry also vide Letter dated 15.05.2023. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1016 of 2016, praying for direction upon the respondents to absorb him to the post of Clerk-Typist and count the service rendered by the petitioner in the Cooperative Society for the purpose of benefits as that of a regular employee. The said writ was disposed of by this Court on 07.03.2024, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered in Md. Akhtar Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 1484 of 2010], and Birendra Kumar Sharma v. The State of Jharkhand [W.P.(S) No. 5071 of 2013]. 6. Pursuant to that, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.05.2024, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide Order dated 01.11.2024. Hence, this writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Letter dated 05.02.2016, following which the 2026:JHHC:20414 4 petitioner was imposed punishment also, and further, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 23.04.2021 to 29.12.2021 vide Letter dated 22.04.2021, thus, all these instances show that the petitioner has been treated as a regular employee without any order of repatriation to the parent Co-operative Society. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that the other employees from the Chhotanagpur Handloom Weavers Cooperative Union, such as Birendra Kumar Sharma and Md. Akhtar Ansari, were directed by this Court to be absorbed and granted retiral benefits, and it was duly granted, therefore, the case of the petitioner, being identically placed, is entitled to the same treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- State submitted that the deputation of the petitioner was done vide Letter dated 21.03.1997 wherein it was clear provision that in case the work done is not found to be satisfactory, then the deputation may be terminated, meaning thereby to say; that their service was of a temporary/transitional nature and in that case such employees were to be eventually returned to their parent Corporation/Union. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that in order to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this court dated 07.03.2024, there was a direction to ensure that the petitioner must submit appropriate documents before the Head of Departments; however, from the representation of the petitioner attaching the copy of the Service Book, certain essential documents are not clearly available/attainable. Furthermore, he submitted that the service of the 2026:JHHC:20414 5 petitioner has not been satisfactory in view of the punishment given to him pursuant to the departmental proceedings and the petitioner being placed on suspension from 23.04.2021 to 29.12.2021. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner while working at the Chhotanagpur Handloom Weavers Cooperative Union Ltd. was sent on deputation to the Social Welfare Department pursuant to a policy decision of the State in the wake of bad financial status of the Cooperative Society; however, the petitioner was not duly absorbed in the Department even after being recommended by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department. Furthermore, the petitioner was also made to retire at the age of 58 years only, in contravention of the fixation of age of superannuation at the age of 60 years, as decided vide Memo No. 171 dated 10.03.2022. 12. It is an admitted position that the petitioner continued to discharge his duties under the said Department from 21.03.1997 till his retirement on 30.04.2022 without any order of repatriation to the parent Co-operative Society. Further, from the pleadings in the writ application, it appears that pursuant to revocation of the petitioner’s suspension, he joined the service in the Department of Child Development Project Office, Gola, Ramgarh on 17.01.2022, which clearly shows that the petitioner has been treated as a regular employee. 13. Thus, this Court in of the considered opinion that the petitioner, having served for nearly 25 years, his prolonged service cannot be treated as a mere deputation; rather, it amounts to transfer of service for absorption, as 2026:JHHC:20414 6 recognized in the Birendra Sharma (supra) case. For brevity, the relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that due to bad financial condition of the Corporations / Boards and Companies / Public enterprises belonging to the State of Bihar, a policy decision dated 24.08.1996, was taken by the Government that the employees of such public bodies be sent on deputation to different departments. It further transpires that clause 6 of the said policy decision clearly speaks that if the service of any such employee is found to be satisfactory then it will be considered for absorption. It is also an admitted fact that like other employees of Board/Corporation, the petitioner was also sent on deputation in the year, 1997 itself and he worked in the same department up till the date of repatriation i.e. for more than 15 long years. This long tenure of deputation cannot be considered as simple deputation rather it was the case of transfer of service for the purpose of absorption because the concerned public undertakings, corporation etc. have become financially unviable and it was difficult for them either to work with many categories of employees or to pay their salary and emoluments. In the case of The State of Jharkhand vs. Dadan Prasad Singh & ors.; L.P.A. No. 340 of 2013 and analogous cases the Division Bench of this Court at para Nos. 14 (ii), (iv) has held as under: “14. (ii) It appears that the private respondents in these Letters Patent Appeals are the original petitioners, who had preferred the writ petitions mainly for the reasons that they were initially in the services of the governmental Boards/ Corporations in the erstwhile State of Bihar. They were never dissatisfied by their parental departments nor there was any agitation in their mind to go on deputation in the services of either Directorate of Provident Fund or Treasury Offices. These peaceful employees were put in difficulty because of the government letters from the Directorate of Provident Fund as well as from the Treasury Offices. (iv) It further appears from the facts of theses, especially from Annexure 2 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 340 of 2013 that these employees were sent on deputation from the Boards/Corporation. Further, looking to the conditions of deputation, it appears from condition no.1 that if the employees are working with all satisfaction to those departments, where they are sent on deputation after 5 years, they may be absorbed. These employees continued for approximately 14 long years into the services of Directorate of Provident Fund as well as Treasury Offices. Never any show cause was issued upon them nor any misconduct has been alleged by the Government, against these employees and, thus, these respondents-employees were working in their parental Boards/ Corporations as 2026:JHHC:20414 7 well as at the Directorate of Provident Fund and Treasury Offices, honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of their respective employers….” 14. It further transpires that the petitioner continued to be an employee of the Chotanagpur Regional Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Ltd. throughout his deputation, but was never absorbed in Government service, as such, the disciplinary control substantially remained with the parent employer. The respondents have not disclosed any statutory provision, service rule, Government notification or condition of deputation conferring disciplinary jurisdiction upon the borrowing department. 15. But it appears that the impugned order proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory. However, throughout the period from 1997 till his retirement on 30.04.2022, no competent authority ever recorded any finding that his service was unsatisfactory, nor was he repatriated to the parent organization; rather the respondents permitted him to continue uninterruptedly for about 25 years and retire from the borrowing department itself. 16. Therefore, the Court finds that, the finding of unsatisfactory service recorded for the first time after retirement in the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law. 17. The Court is of the further view that the policy contemplates absorption upon “satisfactory service” and not “blemish-free service”. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner culminated only in minor punishments such as censure and stoppage of increments without cumulative effect, which neither resulted in dismissal; nor rendered him unsuitable for service. The continued retention of the petitioner till superannuation 2026:JHHC:20414 8 constitutes sufficient evidence that the respondents themselves treated his service as satisfactory, and they are, therefore, estopped from denying absorption on that ground. 18. On perusal of the records and Annexure-2 to the Rejoinder dated 02.04.2026, this Court further finds that, the statements regarding incomplete service book entries and unverified service book are incorrect and misleading. The service book of the petitioner is verified and is duly updated till his date of retirement. During the suspension period, subsistence allowance has been paid in accordance with Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code, and thereafter, the petitioner has received salary as his service book has been verified on the basis of the salary payment register (Vetan Bhugtan Panji) and other documents as evident from the relevant extract of service book itself. Subsequently, the suspension was revoked vide order dated 30.12.2021, and the petitioner continued in service till 30.04.2022. Thus, there was no break in service. Therefore, the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to absorption, continuity of service and full retiral benefits. 19. Furthermore, similarly situated person, came before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1484 of 2010; titled, Md. Akhtar Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand; who was also initially appointed in the Chhotanagpur Regional Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Limited. The said writ application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2020, against which the respondent authority filed an LPA No. 183 of 2021, and, the same was dismissed with an observation that there is no illegality in impugned order dated 01.12.2020, and, the 2026:JHHC:20414 9 same has been affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 passed in SLP(C) No. 24225 of 2023. 20. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner, who has since been allowed to work till his date of retirement and he has rendered long and continuous service in government departments under deputation, fulfilling the very purpose of the absorption policy; as such, his case is not of mere deputation; rather, it is in the nature of deemed absorption. 21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.11.2024, is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner and give entire consequential benefits what has been given to the similarly situated employee namely Md. Akhtar Ansari pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1484 of 2010. 22. The entire exercise shall be completed within 10 weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. 23. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:10/07/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 10.07.2026