( 2026:JHHC:26739 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 6555 of 2026 ---- 1. KAMESHWAR HEMBRAM, aged 49 years, Son of- Sarwan Manjhi, Resident of- village- Tand Balidih, Bandhidih, P.O. & P.S.-Jainamore, District -Bokaro, (Jharkhand). 2. JALESHWAR MAHATO, age-41 years, Son of- Lalit Mahato, Resident of-Village-Charkitand, Mahuda, P.O. & P.S. Mahuda, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). …..Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanbad. 3. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad. 4. The Circle Officer, Nirsa, Dhanbad, P.O.- Nirsa, P.S. & District- Dhanbad. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I --- 02/ Dated: 29.08.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), order(s), and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners on the post of Amin since they are working on the said posts under Respondents for last 18 years, and also in view of judgments pronounced by this Hon'ble Court in WPS no. 6484 of 2018 dated 09.05.2026 ie. in the case of Ramesh Prasad and others. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., wherein under the exactly similar facts person appointed and working along with the petitioner's case has been directed to be considered for regularization, as such prays that the claim of the petitioner may also be directed to be ( 2026:JHHC:26739 ) considered and accordingly be given the same and similar benefits; ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the candidature of this petitioner for regularization/absorption of his services especially taking into consideration the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand passed in CA No. 7423-7429 of 2018; in compliance whereof the State of Jharkhand come up with the regularization rules/scheme popularly knownas the JharkhandState Regularization Rule2015 (झारखǷ सरकारके अिधन ˕अिनयिमतŝपसेिनयुƅएवं कायŊरत कमŊचाįरयों की सेवािनयिमतीकरणिनयमाव ली२०१५), to be read with its subsequent amendement notification dated 20.06.2019 done, in compliance of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, issued in the aforementioned case; wherein it has been postulated that all such daily wage workers who have been rendering their services for 10 years on or before 20.06.2019.their services shall be regularized; and also taking into consideration the fact that exercising the aforesaid regularization rules the services of several other similarly situated daily wage/contractual workers, stood regularized, whereas the regularization / absorption of this petitioner has been discriminated arbitrarily. iii. Further, for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regularization/absorption of his services in permanent establishment especially taking into consideration the recent ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court, in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of Judgment including the recent ratio laid down in the case of Bholanath Vs. The State of Jharkhand, Jaggo vs Union of India and Ors. passed in SLP (C)no. 5580 of 2024, Shripal & Anr. Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad passed in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423- 7429 of 2018, Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 19832-19838 of 2017, W.P.(S) No.4822 of 2018 Baleshwar Prasad Verma Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed by Division Bench, S.L.P(C) Diary No. 19126 of 2025 The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Baleshwar Prasad Verma, Dharam Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P and Anr. Arising out of Civil Appeal No.(s) 8558 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 Radheshyam Mandal vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. L.P.A. No. 176 of 2023 Moti Ram vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors, and many more; whereunder time and again it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as this Hon'ble Court, to regularize services of all such persons who are working on contractual basis/ daily wages and completed more than 10 years of services, working against sanctioned and vacant post, however in-spite of the same, the respondents have not considered the case of this petitioner till date for regularization; and thus consequently prays for a further direction to make computation & payment of all benefits admissible under law, from their initial appointment/joining, till date.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ( 2026:JHHC:26739 ) fully entitled for the prayer made in the instant writ application. The counsel further submits that in spite of several representations, the grievance of the petitioners has not been redressed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed; as such the petitioners may be directed to approach the concerned respondent by filing a fresh representation, who shall look into the matter so that the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and without going into the merits of the case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to look into the grievance of the petitioners by treating this writ application as representation and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations and also in light of Annexure-8, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners and if the order is passed in favour of the petitioners consequential benefits be granted within a further period of 2 weeks. The petitioners may serve a copy of this writ application along with the relevant documents to the concerned respondent for convenience. 6. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. 7. It is made clear that if the petitioners are still working, they shall not be disengaged and shall be receiving their regular remuneration, what they are getting today, till final decision is taken in this case. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 31.08.2026 Abha/-