( 2026:JHHC:26437 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 6034 of 2026 ---- 1. Babita Kumari, Wife of: Nilabh Sinha, aged about, 40 years, Resident of:-New Colony Tungri, Near HP gas Agency, P.O Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, District-West Singhbhum 2. Malti Boipai, Daughter of Durga Charan Boipai, aged of: about 43 years, resident of: -Near P.C.G. Church, P.O. Chaibasa & P.S: Muffasil, District-West Singhbhum. 3. Sheetal Sinku, Daughter of: Parmanand Sinku, aged about 44 years, resident of: -New Colony, Tungri, P.O Chaibasa, P.S. Muffasil, P.O.:- Chaibasa & District-West Singhbhum. 4. Raju Kachhap, Son of Jado Kachhap, aged about 45 years resident of:, Lupung Toli, Namkum Gram Panchayat P.O.:-Namkum. & P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi .......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S- Jagarnathpur, Dist- Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Adhiniyam (MNGREGA), having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O + P.S Chaibasa, Dist- West Singhbhum. 5. The District Development Commissioner, P.O. +P.S-Chaibasa, Dist-West Singhbhum. 6. The Block, Development Officer, Jhinkpani P.O. & P.S- Jhinkpani, Dist- West Singhbhum. 7. The Block Development Officer, Khuntpani, P.O. Khuntpani & P.S- Sadar Chaibasa, Dist- West Singhbhum. 8. The Block Development Officer, Sonua, P.O. & P.S-Sonua, Dist-West Singhbhum 9. The Block Development Officer, Chakardharpur, P.O. & P.S- Chakardharpur, Dist-West Singhbhum .....Respondent(s) ( 2026:JHHC:26437 ) --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate --- 02/ Dated: 29.08.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner(s) 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 /absorb the service of the petitioners on the post of Block Program Officer and any other post, since they are working on the said posts under Respondents for last 10 years and also in view of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that regard;. 3. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P(S) No. 4902 of 2022 with analogous cases. Accordingly, same benefits may be given to this petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents admits the aforesaid contentions. 5. Having regard to the above and looking to the prayer made in this application, it appears that the issue raised in W.P(S) No. 4902 of 2022 is same and similar with this case. 6. This Court in the said case has directed the respondents to employ the petitioners of the said writ application by creating post under the direction of statutory scheme in a regular manner. 7. For brevity, para no. 12 to 22 is extracted herein below:- “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 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 retained in services, against the sanctioned posts, and regularization, but they pray that ( 2026:JHHC:26437 ) they should be allowed to 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 scope for retaining the petitioners within the ambit and provisions of the rule of law, as regulated by the Regulation the employment over which, in regulated under the of 2007. These provisions would give seminal relief to the then earn some status of employment being regulated under employees of MGNREGA scheme, as because, they would 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, 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 regularization. ( 2026:JHHC:26437 ) 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 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.” 8. 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 ( 2026:JHHC:26437 ) manner, as permitted by the statutory provisions of MGNREGA Scheme and they should not be shifted to outsourcing. 9. In consequence, the petitioners shall be allowed the benefits, including salary that has not been paid to them. 10. Accordingly, the writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 29.08.2026 Abha/-