2026:JHHC:20412 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4902 of 2022 ….….. 1. Sonu Prasad, aged about 36 years, S/o-Prem Chand Prasad, R/o-Bazar Muhalla, Kumhar Tola, Ward No. 32, Shahpur, P.O&P.S.- Palamu District- Palamu. 2. Tarique Ahmed, aged about 38 years, S/o -Mustaque Ahmed, R/o-Kund Mohalla, Kani House Road, Ward No. 5, Medininagar P.O & P.S.- Palamu District- Palamu. 3. Anil Kumar Paswan, aged about 38 years, S/o Awadhesh Ram, R/o-Village Taleya, Babhandi, P.O- Taleya, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Palamu. ..… Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Medininagar, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Palamu, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand. 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District- Palamu, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2022 ….….. 1. Mahima Prakash Kerketta, aged about 46 years, S/o Sri Patras Kerketta, R/o- 60, G.E.L. Church Compound, Chaibasa, Pashchimi Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 833201. 2. Soma Koya, aged about 37 years, S/o - Sri Sanchu Koya, R/o- 17/284, Pulhatu, Chaibasa, Pashchimi Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S.- Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 833201. 3. Md. Murshid Anasari, aged about 36 years, C/o Md. Sharif Ansari, R/o- Gousnagar, Near Karbala Saraikela Chowk, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand-833201. 4. Manoj Kumar Gope, aged about 40 years, S/o Sri Sukra Gope, R/o- Pendargaria, Kathbari, P.O.- Kathbari, P.S. Manjhari, District West Singhbhum, 2026:JHHC:20412 2 Jharkhand 833201. ..… Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District- West Singhbhum, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) ….…. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, A.C. to G.P.-VI (in W.P.(S) No. 4902 of 2022) Mr. Suman Marandi, A.C. to S.C.-IV (in W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2022) ….….. C.A.V. ON: 02/07/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:10/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since common issue is involved in both these writ petitions and relief sought-for and the cause of action for the petitioners are also similar; as such, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had been employed as Computer Operators under MGNREGA scheme on honorarium basis and they have been continued for more than 10 years. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued orders that those who have been engaged under the MGNREGA scheme, but have not been working against the sanctioned posts, will be retained in service as Computer Operators, though they will be moved to Outsourcing status. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners in both the cases have moved before this Court. 2026:JHHC:20412 3 They have prayed that their employment under the MGNREGA scheme should be continued, and they should be adjusted against sanctioned post, duly regulated by the protection of Statutory provisions, promulgated under the MGNREGA scheme. In other words, their demand could be construed to mean that they want a protection of statutory status of employment, under the MGNREGA scheme. Consequently, the shift of their engagement on Outsourcing basis should not be permitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that fact of W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2022, is related to the district of West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa; the controlling authority being Dy. Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa (respondent no.3). The petitioners were not engaged against the sanctioned posts, and honorarium was paid to them, w.e.f. the year 2007 onwards. They were working for the respondent authorities continuously and without any break. 5. The petitioners in this case, are aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents, by which, it was decided that the computer operators who have been working against the non-sanctioned post, will be moved to Outsourcing status. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have moved before this Court raising their grievance that they should not be moved to Outsourcing status and their status should be regulated as per the MGNREGA rules and regulation. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that next case, being W.P.(S) No. 4902 of 2022, is related to the district of Palamu (Medininagar), the controlling authorities being respondent no. 2 & 4 (Dy. Commissioner, Medininagar and Dy. Development Commissioner, Palamu, respectively). It had been submitted that particular facts of the case in 2026:JHHC:20412 4 W.P.(S) No. 4902 of 2022 is that the petitioners were engaged by the respondent authorities, in pursuance to the advertisement published, as annexed at Annex No.1 of the writ application. In pursuance to the advertisement, a panel of selected candidates was created, a copy of which has been annexed at Annexure-2 of the writ application. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that the candidates who had fallen below in merit position in the select-panel, were granted appointment against the sanctioned posts, in the District on the post of Computer Operator; whereas, the petitioners, who had better merit position, they were not appointed against the sanctioned post, rather were engaged on daily wages in the Districts. The petitioners continued in services without any break and salary was paid to them, for more than 10 years. 8. All of a sudden, the respondent authorities had taken a decision that the employees who had not been engaged or appointed against the sanctioned post, they will be moved to Outsourcing status, as a result of which, the petitioners had to be treated as such. Being aggrieved, the petitioners moved before this Court and made prayer that they should not be shifted to Outsourcing, rather, they should be adjusted against a sanctioned post, they should be allowed to continue and have status and protection under the MGNREGA rules and regulation. 9. At the outset, it is necessary to record that a status is granted to any employment, on the basis of Rules that regulates the service condition. In the present case the engagements are made under a scheme, therefore, a status of Govt. Employment stricto sensu cannot be advocated. However, even in the employment in the scheme MGNREGA, 2026:JHHC:20412 5 employment is governed and regulated by statutory provisions and rules, framed on delegation, being “Appointments, Service Conditions and Duties of Contractual Appointees Regulations, 2007”, which is framed under the provisions of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. Therefore, the petitioners’ case can be considered to have protection and status under that umbrella. 10. However, in response to the above facts, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit and have brought on record the fact that the petitioners in both the cases were working against non-sanctioned posts. Further, they have stated that they were working on honorarium and their appointment was not in accordance with the provisions of the rules of MGNREGA scheme. 11. In order to supplement their argument, the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2022 have brought on record the Regulation, 2007, in the counter affidavit. It has been highlighted that the Regulations provide for creation of sanctioned post for appointment, on the basis of which, payment is made under the scheme. The number of sanctioned posts has been provided at Appendix-III of the Regulation. The respondents on the basis of these Rules argued that once it is found that the petitioners have not been engaged against the sanctioned posts, in accordance with the rules, then, their employment cannot be sustained and therefore, they have to move to Outsourcing status. 12. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of records, it appears that the petitioners have been employed by the respondents and have continued as Computer Operators for more than 10-15 years. There is no break in service as pleaded by the petitioners. Further, no 2026:JHHC:20412 6 case of in-efficiency or lesser educational qualification has been brought to notice. The only point that concerns the respondents from giving relief to the petitioners is the fact that though they were engaged and have continued to survive in the services, but not against the sanctioned posts. 13. At this stage, the petitioners may not be praying for regularization, but they pray that they should be allowed to be retained in services, against the sanctioned posts, and absolutely not on Outsourcing. Therefore, in other words, it can be understood that their prayer is to allow them to stay in services against sanctioned posts and under the provisions of the Regulations, 2007. 14. At this point, it would be profitable to refer Rule no. 21(3) of Regulation – 2007, that has been placed for reference by the respondent authorities in their counter affidavit [W.P.(S) No.5142 of 2022]. These clauses hold that it is within the power of the respondent authorities to fix the outer number of sanctioned posts. Therefore, on one hand, the respondents have taken work from the petitioners for over 15 years, which itself goes on to satisfy the need to create sanctioned posts, but instead of creating sanctioned posts, the respondents have taken a decision to move the services of the petitioners to Outsourcing. 15. It is true that the petitioners have been working under MGNREGA scheme, which is funded by the Central Govt. and the State Govt. jointly, but it is also a fact that in order to regulate the employment, the competent authority is the State Govt. Therefore, even though the employment of the petitioners under MGNREGA scheme cannot be directed to be absorbed or regularized in the permanent establishment of the State Govt.; there can always be a 2026:JHHC:20412 7 scope for retaining the petitioners within the ambit and protection of the sanctioned post created as per the scheme; the employment over which, is regulated under the provisions of the rule of law, as regulated by the Regulation of 2007. These provisions would give seminal relief to the employees of MGNREGA scheme, as because, they would then earn some status of employment being regulated under the statutory provisions of the Regulations, 2007, as framed on delegation of the Parliamentary Act. 16. Thus, if the status is given to these employees, it can be ensured that any hike in the salary of the MGNREGA employees, will be enjoyed by them in the same manner as is done for all other employees. Further, they will have protection of statutory regulations. On the contrary, if these employees are pushed on to Outsourcing status, then in the absence of any regulation, it is sure that they will be put down to unfair labour practice, against the mighty employers. Moreover, the employment on outsourcing has been pushed to the corner, on the verge of naming it no less than an illegal act on behalf of any welfare state, against its employees, as could be noticed in the Judgments being cited here in below. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826, has held at para-20 that if appointments are not pleaded to be illegal, but possibly irregular and the employees have served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned function for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution, becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently require on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary, into a scenario demanding fair 2026:JHHC:20412 8 regularization. 18. In yet another judgment, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735, the Hon’ble Court has chalked out at para-25 the ill effects of engagement on Outsourcing and has strongly deprecated such exercise on part of the respondents-State authorities. 19. The view of Hon’ble Apex Court is clear in this regard that mere non-availability of sanctioned posts cannot bar the claim of the employees to be regulated under fair service condition. This view is further supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Moti Ram Vs. The State of the Jharkhand & Ors., L.P.A. No. 176 of 2023, judgment and order, dated 17.06.2025, wherein, at para-37, it has been held, taking reference of Jaggo vs. the Union of India (supra) and Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (supra), that merely on the ground of non-availability of sanctioned posts, if the employees have been allowed to continue in the services for a long period of more than 2 decades, their regularization cannot be rejected, as it will amount to unfair labour practice. 20. Having regard to the settled propositions of law and looking to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that since the petitioners have been working under the MGNREGA scheme continuously for more than 15 years, but not enjoying the coverage and protection of the Regulation-2007, or any other regulation to be framed in that regard, should be given that advantage. If the impediment is their engagement against the non-sanctioned post, then such posts shall be created, as because they have been working continuously for more than 2026:JHHC:20412 9 15 years against the backdrop of sanctioned function. Prolonged, continuous and unblemished services, performing tasks inherently required on continuous and regular basis, justify the claim of the petitioners to be put under the coverage of the statutory regulations, and if need be, by creation of sanctioned posts, under the scheme itself. They should not be shifted to outsourcing and should be granted status of employment under the Statutory provision of MGNREGA scheme by creation of sanctioned post. 21. In view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to employ the petitioners against the sanctioned posts, if needed so, by creating of posts, under the protection of statutory scheme in a regular manner, as permitted by the statutory provisions of MGNREGA scheme and they should not be shifted to outsourcing. 22. In consequence, the petitioners shall be allowed all the benefits, including salary that has not been paid to them w.e.f. the date, since the interim protection in both the cases have been passed. 23. Accordingly, these writ applications stand allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:10 /07/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 10.07.2026