2026:JHHC:9453 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2025 of 2026 ------ Rup Sagar Singh, son of Daib Dayal Singh, resident of Village Ekauana, P.O. Ekauana, P.S. Barara, District Bhojpur, Bihar. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Chief Engineer, the office of Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Multi-Purpose Project, Icha, Galudih, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 4. The Executive Engineer, Kharkai Nahar Division, Chaibasa, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dhruva Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, AC to SC Mines-II ------ 02/ 30.03.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the services rendered by the petitioner, prior to his regularization in the year 2011 (Annexure-2), as valid period for the purpose of counting qualifying pensionary services of the petitioner, and to that effect, quash or delete any condition mentioned in the regularization order that prohibits counting of past services; 2026:JHHC:9453 2 (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order(s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to count the services of the petitioner from initial date of his engagement, and therefore, declare him to be entitled for consideration under the 'Old Pension Scheme', in consequent to allowing the prayer no.1(ii) of this application; (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order(s), direction (s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fix and finalize the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and to make payment of monthly pension to him;" 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been regularized w.e.f. 2011 but prior to that he was working on daily wage basis. It is his case that he is not completing the qualifying service from the date of regularization, which is necessary for disbursement of pension, but if the period which the petitioner had worked earlier is taken into consideration, he will fulfill the aforesaid qualifying service. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that similar type of matters have been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004 and this Court in W.P.(S) No.517 of 2026 (Bikash Kumar Pal & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), which 2026:JHHC:9453 3 are also referred by the petitioner in this case. In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court have held that consideration of continuous service rendered by the employee prior to appointment cannot be brushed aside. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent - State submits that this writ petition is for mandamus but nothing has been annexed to suggest that the petitioner has demanded justice by filing any representation. He lastly submits that if the petitioner files a proper representation annexing all the documents including the aforesaid judgments, on which he is relying upon, before respondent No.2 - The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, his case will be considered and appropriate order will be passed, as per law. 6. Considering the aforesaid submission, I direct the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation annexing all the documents including the binding judgments, before respondent No.2, within four weeks. 6.1. The respondent No.2 thereafter will consider the case of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with the representation, and pass a reasoned order. 6.2. If the reasoned order finds favour, the appropriate consequential action i.e. payment of pensionary benefits should be made to the petitioner on completion of paraphernalia i.e. filling up of forms etc. 6.3. If for any reason the claim of the petitioner is 2026:JHHC:9453 4 rejected, the respondents will communicate the said reason to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 30th March, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 07.04.2026