2026:JHHC:6241 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 652 of 2021 ---- Manoj Kumar aged about 46 years Son of Sri Jitendra Prasad, daily rated Clerk, BIT Sindri, P.O & P.S- Sindri, Dist- Dhanbad- 828123. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Govt of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi- 834002. 2. Director, Science and Technology Department, Govt of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi- 834002. 3. Director, B.I.T. Sindri, P.O & P.S- Sindri, Dist Dhanbad - 828123. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Ms. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manjushri Patra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P. V Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate ---- O R D E R RESERVED ON 16.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 10.03.2026 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- A) The Respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to perform his regular duties peacefully and not to stop him from his work. B) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of this petitioner for his regularisation in terms of Notification dated 20.06.2019 and to pass final order within a stipulated period. C) The Respondents be directed not to discriminate this petitioner and to extend the benefit of regularisation of his service at par with the same and similarly situated persons under the Respondents interms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwary and others Vs- State of Jharkhand. D) The Respondents be directed to pay the arrears of salary to this petitioner which due since the month of April 2019 . 2026:JHHC:6241 -: 2 :- E) Any other relief or reliefs for which this petitioner is entitled to . 2. The petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated clerk in September 2008 in the Accounts Section of BIT Sindri. He was paid regularly, from government funds and from the institution’s own funds. In addition to his clerical duties, he was also assigned work in the Hostel office within the campus. He was further entrusted with additional duties in the hostel office. In 2016, he was allotted residential quarters. In April 2019, his salary was stopped and in January 2021, he was orally restrained from work and was prevented from entering the office. He made several representations requesting payment of his salary but no action was taken. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that notwithstanding his long and satisfactory service, the petitioner’s salary has been illegally withheld since April 2019 without any written order. It is further submitted that the petitioner was orally restrained from discharging his duties on 11.01.2021 and physically prevented from entering the office from 12.01.2021, without notice or show cause. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that such action is clear violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the petitioner has rendered more than ten years of continuous service and is entitled to consideration for regularisation. She also contended that several similarly situated daily-wage employees have already been regularised. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned Class III post and was only engaged on a purely part-time, need- based basis for specific assignments in different sections of the institute, including the Accounts Section and the Office of the General Warden. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s remuneration was drawn from different funds depending on the nature of work performed. Learned counsel relied upon Government Order No. 731 dated 08.06.2004, pursuant to which the petitioner was directed not to continue in service from April 2019. He also contended that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria for regularisation and, therefore, his claim of twelve years of continuous regular service is untenable. 5. I have also gone through the records of the case. It transpires that no sanctioned post existed and no advertisement was ever published for appointment. It could also not be culled out as to why the petitioner was chosen excluding several others. No equal opportunity was given to any 2026:JHHC:6241 -: 3 :- person to seek this engagement. There is absolute violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apparent in this case. It is also an admitted fact that payment of petitioner’s remuneration was made from different heads depending upon the nature of work performed by him. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has worked continuously. The appointment, itself, is absolutely illegal. An appointment, which is illegal cannot be regularized. 6. So far as the claim of the petitioner that similarly situated persons have been regularized is concerned, the same has been denied by the respondents inasmuch as those persons were appointed on sanctioned vacant posts of the institute by the Competent Authority whereas the petitioner was neither appointed by any Competent Authority nor was working on a sanctioned vacant post. Further the contention of the petitioner that his regularization can be considered in terms of notification dated 20.06.2019 also falls flat for want of pre-requisites, which the petitioner fails to fulfill. 7. In view of the aforesaid, since the very appointment of the petitioner is absolutely bad and against the Constitutional provisions, there is no scope for entertaining his claim for regularization. I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 10th March, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 10.03.2026