JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. I.A. No.10542 of 2025: 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 133 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being satisfied with the reasons set out in the present interlocutory application, the said delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. I.A. No.10542 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of. L.P.A. No.457 of 2025: 4. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order/judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 268 of 2024, whereby the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (appellant no.3 herein) has been quashed and set aside, directing the said appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioner/respondent for regularization from the date of his initial appointment. 5. The facts of the case as stated in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is as under:- (i) A letter vide Memo No. 243 dated 26.08.2003 was issued by the appellant no. 3 whereby the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari was permitted to appoint Jeep Driver on daily wages for a contractual period of three months for driving the departmental vehicle of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Nagar Untari. Pursuant to the said direction, the writ petitioner was appointed on the post of jeep driver for a period of three months from 01.09.2003 to 30.11.2003 on daily wages of Rs.74.55 per day vide order dated 01.12.2003 issued by the Circle Officer, Chiniya. (ii) The writ petitioner continued to perform the duty against vacant and sanctioned post of driver and time to time he was asked to perform his duty at several places. (iii) A letter bearing No. 2405 dated 14.03.2003 was issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the Principal Secretary/ Secretary/Head of all the departments and all the Divisional Commissioners of the State of Jharkhand were requested to send the desired information in the prescribed format regarding the drivers who were working on daily wages/contract basis. (iv) Thereafter, the office of the appellant no.3 issued direction under the signature of the appellant no.4 vide letter dated 25.02.2014 to all Sub Divisional Officers, Block Development Officers and Circle Officers of Garhwa district, asking them to send the desired information in prescribed format with respect to the drivers who were working on contract or daily wages. Pursuant to the said direction, the Block Development Officer, Chiniya sent detailed information of the writ petitioner to the appellant no.4 vide memo no. 157 dated 28.03.2014 stating that he had been working as driver on daily wages since 01.09.2003 and his total period of service rendered was 11 years 06 months, however, no step was taken by the appellant no.3 to regularize his service. (v) Subsequently, vide Letter No. 66 dated 21.01.2016 issued under the signature of the appellant no.4, a list of the persons working on daily wages or on contractual basis was again demanded pursuant to which the Block Development Officer, Chiniya vide Letter No. 818 dated 24.10.2016 sent him a chart of daily wages employees and in the said chart the name of the writ petitioner was mentioned at Serial No.1, however no further step was taken for regularization of his service. (vi) After few years, a letter bearing No.381 dated 03.08.2019 was issued by the appellant no.3, asking all the office heads of Collectorate Cadre within the district of Garhwa to send list of irregularly appointed employees working under the Government in terms with the Jharkhand Regularization of Services of Irregularly Appointed and Working Employees Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2019). In response to the said letter, the Block Development Officer, Chiniya vide Letter No. 400 dated 19.09.2019 sent the name of the writ petitioner for regularization of his service providing detailed information that his total period of service rendered till 20.06.2019 was 16 years and 09 months, however the services of the writ petitioner was not regularized at that stage also. (vii) The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5972 of 2022 seeking regularization of his service on the post of driver. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2022 permitting the writ petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before the appellant no.3 who in turn was directed to consider his case by passing a reasoned order as per law. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2022 permitting the writ petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before the appellant no.3 who in turn was directed to consider his case by passing a reasoned order as per law. It was further held, inter alia, that since the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned and vacant post, he would not be removed from service even if the order was not passed in his favour. (viii) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to the appellant no. 3 on 26.12.2022, seeking consideration of his case for regularization of service, however, the same was rejected by the said appellant vide order dated 10.07.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (Civil) No.344 of 2023, wherein vide an interim order dated 08.09.2023, the appellant no.3 was directed to revisit the order dated 10.07.2023. In pursuance of the said direction, the appellant no.3 passed the reasoned order on 06.12.2023 whereby the claim of the petitioner was again rejected. Subsequently it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant no.3 that the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.5972 of 2022 was complied. Accordingly, the Contempt proceeding was dropped vide order dated 08.12.2023, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to take appropriate recourse against the aforesaid reasoned order. 6. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No.268 of 2024 challenging the order dated 06.12.2003 passed by the appellant no.3. The said writ petition was allowed on 13.08.2024 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the appellant no.3 and directing the said appellant to again consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularization of service from the date of his initial appointment. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appointment of the writ petitioner was not done by a competent authority, rather he was appointed by the Circle Officer, Chiniya, who was not the competent authority, and as such the appellant no. 3 had rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of his service. 8. It is also submitted that the appointment order of the writ petitioner contained a reference of the letter no.243 dated 26.08.2003 issued by the appellant no.3. 3 had rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of his service. 8. It is also submitted that the appointment order of the writ petitioner contained a reference of the letter no.243 dated 26.08.2003 issued by the appellant no.3. However, the said letter did not confer any power to the Circle Officer, Chiniya to issue appointment letter to the writ petitioner, rather by the said letter, the Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari was authorized to make appointment of Jeep driver only on daily wages for a period of three months to drive the official vehicle of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Nagar Untari. 9. It is further submitted that neither any public notice/advertisement was issued nor names were called from the employment exchange before making appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of driver and as such his appointment was completely illegal, which cannot be regularized. 10. It is argued that in view of the regularization policy of the State of Jharkhand as contained in notification no.4871 dated 20.06.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, irregular appointments made by the authorities not competent to do so, cannot be regularized. 11. It is also urged that even otherwise, the appointment of the writ petitioner was purely contractual in nature and as such he cannot claim any right to be regularized. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgement. 13. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the writ petitioner has been working on a vacant and sanctioned post of driver for more than 20 years and his appointment was not illegal, rather it could comfortably be termed to be an irregular appointment and as such he was entitled to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has given much emphasis to the argument that the appointment of the writ petitioner as a driver was not made by the competent authority and as such he was not entitled to be regularized on the said post. 15. For better appreciation of the contention of the appellants, it would be profitable to refer few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laying down the guidelines for regularization of irregular appointments. 16. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. 15. For better appreciation of the contention of the appellants, it would be profitable to refer few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laying down the guidelines for regularization of irregular appointments. 16. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 ] , R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 17. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 17. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the purpose and intent of the decision rendered in the case of Umadevi (3) (Supra) was to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. It has further been held that the State of Jharkhand having continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade even after the decision in Umadevi (3), is a clear indication of it believing that it was fine to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, to terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. The said action of the State is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and placing the sword of Damocles over their heads. Their Lordships have also observed that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc. 18. Thus, it is no more res integra that a contractual or daily wages employee who has worked against a duly sanctioned vacant post for more than 10 years by the date on which the regularization rules is made, is entitled for regularization in service. 19. 18. Thus, it is no more res integra that a contractual or daily wages employee who has worked against a duly sanctioned vacant post for more than 10 years by the date on which the regularization rules is made, is entitled for regularization in service. 19. In a recent decision i.e., Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants of that case against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed by holding that 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. 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. 20. Reverting back to the case in hand. we have perused the letter no.243 dated 26.08.2003 which was issued by the appellant no.3 to Sub Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari granting permission to keep Jeep driver on daily wages/contract basis renewable on every three months till the appointment of regular driver for driving the departmental vehicle of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Nagar Untari. Thus, the contractual period was extendable on quarterly basis. Though the said letter was addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, the copies of the same were also forwarded to all the Block Development Officers and Circle Officers posted in Garhwa district for information and necessary action. 21. In the aforesaid letter, it was not specifically stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari would only be the competent authority to appoint the Jeep driver on contract basis, rather from the content of the said letter, it appears that even the Circle Officer(s) were authorized for such appointment. 22. Moreover, on perusal of the content of the letter dated 01.12.2003 of the Circle Officer, Chiniya, it would be evident that the said letter was issued to the writ petitioner appointing him as Jeep driver on contract basis for three months i.e. from 01.09.2003 to 30.11.2003 in the light of direction issued by the appellant no.3 vide letter no.243 dated 26.08.2003. 23. 23. It is an admitted fact that after the appointment of the writ petitioner on contractual basis, he worked for more than 20 years on the vacant and sanctioned post of driver and served in the office of Circle Office, Chiniya as well as Block Office, Chiniya. It is also not the contention of the appellants that the writ petitioner did not have requisite qualification for being regularized on the post of driver. Even during his entire service tenure, none of the officers under whom he served, raised objection regarding validity of his appointment. Though the contention of the appellants is that the Circle Officer, Chiniya had illegally appointed the writ petitioner on the post of driver on contract basis, yet they are unable to explain as to what action was taken by them against the concerned Circle Officer if at all, according to them, appointment of the writ petitioner was illegal. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants has put reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639 . We have perused the said judgment. However, in the said case, the appellant was not appointed against sanctioned post and as such his claim for regularization was rejected. 25. In the case in hand, the writ petitioner was appointed against sanctioned vacant post pursuant to the direction issued by the competent authority. As such, the facts situation of the present case is completely different from the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, the said judgment will not be applicable in the facts of the present case. 26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 268 of 2024. 27. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 28. Other pending I.A.(s), if any, are also dismissed.