2026:JHHC:24866 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4519 of 2024 --------- 1. Shatrudhan Vishwakarma, aged about 48 years, S/o-Mutuk Ram Karmali, R/o- Village Chetar, P.O.- Gosa, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 2. Laxman Singh, aged about 41 years, S/o- Bisheshwar Singh, R/o- Qr.No.-1B-51/5, C.C.L. Colony, Hehal, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 3. Sandeep Kumar Mahto, aged about 25 years, S/o-Dewnarayan Mahto, R/o- Nich Tola, Gobardarha, P.O.-Kaitha, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 4. Naresh Kumar Thakur, age about-31 years, S/o- Madhu Thakur, R/o- Dohakhatu, P.O. Chutupalu, P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. 5. Raj Kumar Ram, aged about 34 years, S/o- Pratap Ram, R/o- M/D/S- 198, New Coloney Argada, P.O. & P.S.-Argada, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, having office at Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand) 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, having office at Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand) 4. Nagar Parishad, Ramgarh, through its Chairman, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand) 5. Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Ramgarh, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Deb, A.C. to G.P.-VI Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 18.08.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, back in services; (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant the payment and arrear of salary, for the period extending between July 2019 to 14 February, 2020, which was not paid to the petitioners for no reasons, even though petitioners had performed their services; 2026:JHHC:24866 2 (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioners and grant all consequential benefits, considering the fact that petitioners have nowhere been gainfully employed, during the period for which they had remained out of service, i.e. w.e.f. February, 2020; 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were working on ad hoc basis before the respondent authorities which is now called Ramgarh, Nagar Parishad. 4. Initially, the petitioners were appointed under the scheme known as Swachh Bharat Mission funded by the State Government on ad hoc basis. During span of time, the State Government stopped funding to the Nigam and directed the Nigam to pay the salary and remuneration to its employees on its own and not on the basis of any fund given by the State. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the moment, the State Government stopped funding the respondent-Nagar Parishad; the petitioners were disengaged from service and a new set of ad hoc employees were appointed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at this stage, a direction may be issued to the concerned respondent to consider their cases for ad hoc employment as they are having experience in this field. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit that after stoppage of fund from the State Government and after stoppage of the scheme, the petitioners were disengaged and a new set of employees have been employed on ad hoc basis. 2026:JHHC:24866 3 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and admitted position, without going into the legal issue that one set of ad-hoc employees cannot be supplemented by another set of ad hoc employees; the instant writ application, is hereby, disposed of by directing the petitioners to file joint representation before the 5th respondent. The moment the representation will be received by the said respondent, he shall look into the matter and consider the case of the petitioners in view of the fact that cleaning of the city is a perennial work. 9. It is made clear that the respondent shall also keep in mind the settled proposition of law that one set of ad hoc employees should not be substituted by another set of ad hoc employees. Any order in this regard be passed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of any such representation. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) AUGUST 18, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 27/08/2026