SHABNAM PERWIN vs DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:13583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022
---------
Sanjay Kumar Jha, age about 50 years, Son of Kapleshwar
Jha, Resident of Qts. No. SDT 6/17, DVC Colony (Station
Road), P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro,
Jharkhand. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO+PS.
Maniktola Kolkata-54., WB
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Public Grievance Officer, DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road PO+PS-Maniktola Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-
54. W.B.
4. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+PS-Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
5. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+P.S. -Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1166 of 2022
---------
Isha Kumari, age about 52 years, Wife of Rabindra Kumar
Singh, Resident of Qr. No. B-100, Govindpur Project, CCL
Colony, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro,
Jharkhand. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO+PS.
Maniktola Kolkata-54., WB
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Public Grievance Officer, DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road PO+PS-Maniktola Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-
54. W.B.
4. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+PS-Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
5. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+P.S. -Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1167 of 2022
---------
Jai Prakash Narain, age about 53 years, Son of Late Tulsi
Mandal, Resident of Qr. No. RD-5/7 Near Civil Office, DVC
Colony, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapura, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1
2026:JHHC:13583
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO+PS.
V.I.P. Road Kolkata-54., WB
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Public Grievance Officer, DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road PO+PS-Maniktola Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-
54. W.B.
4. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+PS- VIP Road, Kolkata-54. W.B.
5. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+P.S. - VIP Road, Kolkata-54. W.B.
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1343 of 2022
---------
1. Narendra Kumar Chaudhary, aged about 51 years, S/o late
Harinandan Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Bishunpur
Mangal, P.O. Rajala, P.S. Kuthani, District- Muzaffarpur
(Bihar) at present working as PG Teacher at DVC High School,
Panchet, P.O. & P.S- Panchet, District- Dhanbad.
2. Hemant Kumar, aged about 55 years, S/o Lakshmi Narayan
Mahto, Resident of Village Barotand (Nawadih), P.O. Dumma,
P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih at present working as PG Teacher
at DVC High School, Panchet, P.O. & P.S- Panchet, District-
Dhanbad.
3. Manoj Kumar, aged about 49 years, S/o Sahdeo Chaudhary,
Resident of Village Mandramo, P.O. & P.S.- Sariya, District
Giridih at present working as PRT Teacher at DVC Middle
English School, Panchet, P.O. & P.S- Panchet, District-
Dhanbad. .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its chairman, at DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. Kakurgachhi, P.S.-Maniktala, District-
Kolkata.
2. The Member Secretary, at DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O.-
Kakurgachhi, P.S. Maniktala, District- Kolkata.
3. The Executive Director, HR, Damodar Valley Corporation, at
DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O.-Kakurgachhi, P.S.- Maniktala,
District- Kolkata.
4. The Deputy Director, HR Recruitment, at DVC Towers, VIP
Road, P.O.-Maniktola, District- Kolkata. Kakurgachhi, P.S.-
5. The Grievance Officer, at DVC Towers, VIP Road, P.O.-
Kakurgachhi, P.S.-Maniktala, District- Kolkata.
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 309 of 2025
---------
Shabnam Perwin, age about 53 years, Wife of A.N.M. Shaida,
Resident of Bokaro Thermal, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Thermal,
2
2026:JHHC:13583
District - Bokaro, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
Road, PO& P.S- Kolkata, District Kolkata-54
3. Director, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
Road, PO&P.S-Kolkata, Dist- Kolkata-54.
4. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road P.0& P.S. Dist-Kolkata-54.
5. Executive Director (HR), DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO&PS
Kolkata, Dist. Kolkata-54.
6. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO&PS
Kolkata, Dist. Kolkata-54. .... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 340 of 2025
---------
Harendra Kumar Singh, age about 58 years, Son of Surendra
Kumar Singh, Resident of HMT 27/1., Near Hospital More,
Govindpur C. Bokaro Thermal, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro
Thermal, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
Road, PO& P.S- Kolkata, District Kolkata-54
3. Director, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
Road, PO& P.S-Kolkata, Dist- Kolkata-54.
4. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road P.0& P.S. Dist-Kolkata-54.
5. Executive Director (HR), DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO&PS
Kolkata, Dist. Kolkata-54.
6. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO&PS
Kolkata, Dist. Kolkata-54. .... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1201 of 2022
---------
Anjana Prasad, aged about 48 years, wife of Shri Bipin Kumar
Chanchal, resident of NPCC Colony, Govindpur, P.O.-
Govindpur, Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro:
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation, a Government of India
Undertaking having its Head Quarters at DVC Tower, VIP
Road, P.O-VIP Road, P.S.-Vidhan Nagar, District 24-Pargana,
Kolkata-54 (W.B.):
2. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, at
3
2026:JHHC:13583
DVC Tower, VIP Road, P.O.-VIP Road, P.S.-Vidhan Nagar,
District 24-Pargana, Kolkata-54 (W.B.):
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1225 of 2022
---------
Shobha Pandey, age about 56 years, Wife of Bimlesh Dutta
Mishra, Resident of SDT-1/24, Bokaro Thermal, P.O. & P.S. -
Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO+PS.
Maniktola Kolkata-54., WB
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Public Grievance Officer, DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road PO+PS-Maniktola Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-
54. W.B.
4. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+PS-Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
5. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+P.S. -Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1236 of 2022
---------
Bimlesh Dutta Mishra, age about 58 years, Son of P.D. Mishra,
Resident of Q. No. HMD-83/D, Bokaro Thermal, P.O. & P.S.
Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO+PS.
Maniktola Kolkata-54., WB
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Public Grievance Officer, DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road PO+PS-Maniktola Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-
54. W.B.
4. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+PS-Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
5. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+P.S. -Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
.... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 1238 of 2022
---------
Shabnam Perween, age about 52 years, Wife of Md.
Shahjahan, Resident of Raza Bazar, Govindpur F, Govindpur,
4
2026:JHHC:13583
P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. Damodar Valley Corporation through its Chairman, DVC
Towers, VIP Road, P.O. and P.S. Maniktola, Kolkata, West
Bengal.
2. The Member Secretary, DVC, DVC Tower, VIP Road, PO+PS.
Maniktola, Kolkata-54.,
3. Joint Secretary-cum-Public Grievance Officer, DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road PO+PS-Maniktola Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata-
54.
4. Executive Director (HR), Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+PS-Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
5. Deputy Director of Personnel (Recruitment), DVC, DVC
Tower, VIP Road, P.O+P.S. -Maniktola, Kolkata-54. W.B.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
Mrs. Priyanka Dayal, Advocate
[in W.P.(S) No. 1137,1166,1167,1343,1225,1236, 1238 of 2022
and 309, 340 of 2025]
Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate
Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
[in W.P. (S) No. 1201 of 2022]
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N.Sahay, Sr. Advocate
For the Res.-JSCC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. ON: 10.04.2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/04/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All these writ petitions involve common question of law
and facts, and hence, with the consent of the parties, all were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment. The prayers have been made for regularization of
the services of the respective petitioners.
The Facts: -
3. In W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022, the case of the petitioner
5
2026:JHHC:13583
(Sanjay Kumar Jha) is that he has M.A. in Geography with
B.Ed. An advertisement was issued on 19.10.2002. After
facing the selection process, he was appointed on
16.04.2003.
The case of the petitioner (Isha Kumari) in W.P.(S) No.
1166 of 2022 is that she has M.A. in History. She also faced
the same selection process and she was appointed on
16.04.2002.
The case of the petitioner (Jai Prakash Narain) in W.P.(S)
No. 1167 of 2022 is that he has M.Sc. (Chemistry) with B.Ed.
and advertisement in his case was also issued on 19.10.2002
and he was appointed on 23.08.2004.
It is the case of Shobha Pandey in W.P.(S) No. 1225 of
2022 that she has M.A. in Sanskrit with B.Ed. and the
advertisement in her case was issued on the same day, i.e. on
19.10.2002 and she was appointed on 17.04.2003.
Bimlesh Dutta Mishra in W.P.(S) No. 1236 has M.com
with B.Ed. and BA in History. He also faced the same
advertisement dated 19.10.2002 and got appointed on
17.04.2003.
The Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1238 of 2022 (Shabnam
Perween) has B.A. with B.Ed. who faced advertisement dated
19.02.2002 and was appointed on 15.09.2005.
The Petitioner Shabnam Perwin in W.P.(S) No. 309 of
2002 has B.A. with B.T. She faced advertisement dated
19.02.2002 and was appointed on 20.12.2004.
In W.P.(S) No. 340 of 2023 the Petitioner (Harendra
Kumar Singh) has B.Sc. in Mathematics with B.T. He also
faced the same advertisement and was appointed on
6
2026:JHHC:13583
15.07.2004.
4. Though the facts of each case are almost common; as
such for convenience, facts of W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022
( Sanjay Kumar Jha case) has been referred hereinbelow. An
advertisement was issued in daily newspaper Hindustan for
engagement of teachers on contractual basis. Pursuant to
which, the petitioner being eligible applied for such
appointment. After facing selection process, appointment
letter was issued to him and the same has been placed on
record at Annexure-1. His case is that he was appointed on a
sanctioned and vacant post of post-graduate trained teacher
in the Department of Geography.
A detailed chart has been placed on record as Annexure-
2 of the writ petition with respect to sanction of posts. A letter
dated 9.5.2014 has been placed on record as Annexure-3 of
the writ petition. As per this letter, the service of the
petitioner was discontinued for a month (approx) from
19.05.2014 to 17.04.2014 with a further direction to resume
duty on 18.04.2014 as usual.
5. The further case of this petitioner is that a writ petition,
being W.P.(S) No. 6695 of 2007 was decided on 28.02.2008 in
the case of DVC Teachers Association Vs. Damador Vally
Corporation ; whereby a direction was issued by this Court
that DVC will not regularize any person engaged on part
time/ contract basis.
This order was challenged in LPA No. 216 of 2008 , which
was disposed of on 28.04.2016 with a direction that the
judgment of the writ Court will not come in the way of
engagement / regularization in accordance with law and the
judgment to this extent of the writ Court was modified.
7
2026:JHHC:13583
6. The Damador Valley Corporation (for short ‘the
Corporation’) has filed its counter affidavit stating inter alia
that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their
services. The Corporation has further pleaded that the
engagement of the petitioners was purely on day-to-day basis
and the services were utilized on day-to-day basis. The
Corporation further pleads that the sanction of teacher has
been revised in 2013 and in 2021.
With respect to Annexure-2 and the corresponding
statement made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, it has
been contended that the Corporation has decided to go for
outsourcing for the entire sanctioned strength of teachers.
7. It has been further pleaded that even if vacancy exists,
the same has to be filled up by open advertisement and not
from the teachers appointed on contractual basis. The further
case of the Corporation is that vacancies mentioned were
based on sanction prior to 2013, which has been reduced to
large extent.
Arguments advanced by the petitioners:
8. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders dated
27.09.2016 and 10.01.2017 are highly arbitrary, illegal,
unconstitutional and in colourable exercise of power. He
submitted that the impugned decisions have been made
without any application of mind by the Corporation, as the
claim of the petitioners has been rejected only on the ground
that by order dated 28.04.2016 in L.P.A. No. 216 of 2008 of
the Division Bench cannot be construed as direction to
regularize their services as Teachers.
9. It has been further submitted by the Ld. Counsel that
8
2026:JHHC:13583
memorandum dated 07.10.2020, as annexed as Annexure-9
to the writ petition, cannot be relied upon by the Corporation
to reject the claim of the petitioners for regularization, as
contended in paragraph-25 of the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022 .
He has submitted that this is a mere guideline to defend
the Court cases for regularization, which cannot be used as
against the petitioners for rejecting their claim for
regularization.
10. Mr. Tandon places reliance on Office Order dated
03.02.2022, placed on record as Annexure-10 of the writ
petition to fortify his argument that all the teachers,
including PRT, TGT and PGT, were getting monthly
consolidated pay of Rs. 21,500/-, 26250/- and 27500/-
respectively.
11. He further submitted that petitioners that the
petitioners had been performing their duties and the entire
school is dependent upon these petitioners, as their work is
permanent in nature, though titled as ‘contractual
employees’.
12. It has submitted that years of ad-hoc engagement itself
is sufficient to regularize the services of the petitioners. The
respondents have not dealt with fairness and respect for the
dignity of the work, as the petitioners are discharging their
duty as teachers (PRT, TGT and PGT). It has been submitted
that the creation of post is primarily an executive function
and, in fact, the documents placed at Annexure-2 with
respect to sanction of posts, has not been disputed by the
Corporation in their counter affidavit and hence the
petitioners cannot be treated as working against the posts,
9
2026:JHHC:13583
which are not sanctioned.
13. He further submitted that exploitation through long
term contractual basis is now being shifted to outsourcing, as
contended by the respondents, which is not permissible in
the eye of the law, particularly in a case where the work is
permanent in nature. Indefinite temporary employment in
public service may not be countenanced.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy
reliance upon decisions which govern the field of
regularization. More particularly, learned counsel relied upon
the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Dharam Singh and others versus State of U.P.
and another , reported in [ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 ] to
contend that since the work in question is permanent in
nature and the petitioners have rendered more than twenty
years of service as teachers, as such they are entitled for
regularization.
Arguments advanced by the Respondents:
15. Mr. R.N. Sahay, Ld. Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent-Corporation has submitted that the petitioners
were engaged on contractual basis. They do not have any
right of regularization, as the respondent-Corporation takes
work from the petitioners as and when required. He
submitted that the impugned orders are dated 27.09.2016
and 10.01.2017 and the writ petition has been preferred in
the year 2022 and hence, the same is hit by the principle of
delay and laches. It has been contended that the writ
petitions deserve to be dismissed on this count alone.
16. Ld. Sr. Counsel has also submitted that no work was
used to be taken from the petitioners during the summer
10
2026:JHHC:13583
vacation and to fortify this argument, he has referred
Annexure-3 dated 09.05.2014 of the writ petition. The
respondents have relied upon the decisions in the case of
1
Sanjay Guchhait & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors .
It has been therefore argued that the writ petitions deserve
dismissal.
Analysis and reasons:
17. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused
the materials on record. The main grievance of the petitioners
is that their representation for regularization has been
rejected arbitrarily.
18. In light of the facts of the present case which is same
and similar in all the writ applications, this Court holds that
the writ petitions deserve to be allowed for the following
reasons:-
(a)
It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are
working for more than twenty years. Continuance of
employees for more than twenty years on contractual
basis itself connotes that the work discharged by these
petitioners are permanent in nature. These petitioners
are the backbone of the school in question, run by
Damodar Valley Corporation. Therefore, the fate of these
petitioners cannot be left at the whims and fancies of
the respondent-Corporation which is a creature of a
Statute. This Corporation is created by the Damodar
Valley Corporation Act, 1948. The Corporation,
therefore, is expected to work within the four corners of
law and behave like a model employer.
(b) The petitioners have rightly relied upon the
1
2026 SCC OnLine Cal 3045
11
2026:JHHC:13583
judgment rendered in the case of the Dharam Singh
(supra) . In the said case, the petitioners before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court were working from 1997 and
they were being paid daily wages. The Writ Court
declined to grant relief. The Special Appeal preferred
there against before the Division Bench of Allahabad
High Court, affirmed the order of the Writ Court by
declining regularization to the petitioners.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, however, directed
regularization of those petitioners. Though the order
was passed on 19.08.2025, but the regularization was
ordered to be affected from the year 2002. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a State (Union and State
Governments) is not a mere market participant but a
Constitutional Employer. For ready reference,
paragraphs-17 and 18 are extracted hereinbelow:-
“17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State
(here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a
mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot
balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic
and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and
year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term
extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy,
but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to
organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives
where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep
and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and
outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why
they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the
work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show
what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers
were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the
human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It
is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision
affecting those who keep public offices running.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
(c) There is yet another decision by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India &
12
2026:JHHC:13583
Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 . The
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appellants were
rendering services for long time, for more than ten
years and their services cannot be brushed aside
merely by labeling their initial appointments as part
time or contractual. It was held that their employment
must be considered in the light of their sustained
contribution, the integral nature of their work and the
fact that no evidence suggested their entry was
through any illegal or surreptitious route.
The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that there was
nothing on record that during the continuance of their
services, there was any issue raised with respect to
their competence or performance. The facts of this
case were that the petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex
Court were working in Central Water Commission on
part time ad-hoc terms. For better appreciation of the
matter, paragraphs 11 to 16 are reproduced in
extenso: -
“11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in
performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day
functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC).
Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for
maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment
within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and
cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a set of
responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational
functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with
additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical
maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises,
and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants
performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over
extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it
was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated
with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any
other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring
the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts
lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was
perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring
13
2026:JHHC:13583
nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts,
irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private
agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need
for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one
set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question
was neither temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following
dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary
and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without
prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural
justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees
are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against
them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this
case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were
they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two
decades of dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for
outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings,
despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status
quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only
contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents'
unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to
regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures
further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their
engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their
competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended
repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was
incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their
satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged
unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks
credibility.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
(d) The facts of the Jaggo’s case (supra) disclose
that he was terminated from service, but such
termination order was also quashed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court with a direction to regularize the services
forthwith.
(e) Reference may also be made in this regard to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others ,
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129 . This
judgment arises out of a judgment passed by this
Court. The writ petition for regularization was
dismissed by this Court on the ground that such
claimants / petitioners for regularization were
14
2026:JHHC:13583
working on contractual basis.
The LPA preferred against was also dismissed
by the Division Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Apex
Court dealt with the issue of legitimate expectation of
the employees, who worked for a considerable length
of time on contractual basis. The issue of perpetual
contractual engagements has been dealt with in this
judgment. While concluding, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that such contractual employees working
for decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement could not be denied regularization.
The Hon’ble Apex Court further directed the
State to regularize their services forthwith with all
consequential service benefits. This judgment deals
with “unconscionable agreements-contract between
Lion and a Lamb.” Paragraphs-12.2 and 12.3 are
relevant and the same are extracted below:-
“12.2. At this juncture, the analogy of apples and oranges serves as a
useful reminder that certain relationships are inherently incapable of
being assessed on an equal plane. A contract between the State and
an employee stands on a similar footing. The State, in such a
relationship, assumes the role of a metaphorical lion, endowed with
overwhelming authority, resources and bargaining strength, whereas
the employee, who is yet an aspirant, is reduced to the position of a
metaphorical lamb, possessing little real negotiating power. To
suggest parity between the two, i.e. the lion and the lamb, would be to
ignore the stark imbalance that defines the relationship.
12.3. Therefore, where a lion contracts with a lamb, the inequality is
not incidental but structural, and it is precisely this disproportion
that calls for judicial sensitivity. In such situations, the conscience of
Constitutional Courts must inevitably tilt in favour of protecting the
lamb. We have no hesitation in holding that Constitutional Courts are
duty- bound to act to safeguard those who are vulnerable to
exploitation, so that employees are not compelled to meekly submit to
the demands of a vastly dominant contracting party like the State, but
are instead assured that constitutional protections will intervene to
prevent such exploitation.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
(f) The facts of the present set of cases clearly
demonstrate that although the petitioners were initially
appointed on a contractual basis during the period
15
2026:JHHC:13583
2003 to 2005; their engagements were periodically
discontinued during intervals such as summer
vacations, which are manifestly artificial and
engineered in nature. Despite such intermittent
breaks, the petitioners were consistently re-engaged
and continued to discharge their duties
uninterruptedly and to the full satisfaction of the
competent authorities.
The so-called breaks in service do not evidence any
voluntary abandonment, resignation, or cessation of
employment on the part of the petitioners, but are
merely technical interruptions devoid of any
substantive legal effect. In this regard the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has in the case of Prem Chand & Ors.
2
v. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein the Respondents
denied regularization on the ground that the service of
the petitioners was not continuous, however the
Hon’ble Apex Court examined the break in service as
artificial wherein the petitioners were re-engaged
continuously, save and except, the short break and
allowed the appeal. The relevant paragraph of Prem
Chand & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) is
quoted herein below:
“20. Moreover, the breaks in service relied upon by the
Respondents to deny regularization are, on a closer examination,
artificial in nature. The Appellants were consistently re-engaged,
save for short breaks, and continued to discharge their duties to
the satisfaction of the appointing authorities on the same posts.
The breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or
voluntary cessation of employment. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the long service of the Appellants cannot be
disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling the initial
employment as ad hoc.
21. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 02.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court is set aside as also the order of dismissal from service of
2
Civil Appeal No. 12139 of 2025
16
2026:JHHC:13583
the Appellants dated 23.01.2008.
The Appellants, as a consequence, shall be deemed to be in
continuous service without any break.”
(g) The petitioners, in fact, have rendered their
services and their contribution to the School for such a
long period itself is sufficient to regularise the services
of the petitioners. The embargo for non- regularization
was duly considered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Damador Valley Corporation
versus DVC Teachers Association in L.P.A. No. 216
of 2008 and the Division Bench directed that
regularization is permissible in accordance with law.
This direction of the Division Bench has been totally
misconstrued and misinterpreted by passing the
impugned orders by the respondents.
(h) The impugned decisions are absolutely in colorable
exercise of power to deny legitimate colourable of the
petitioners, which cannot be sustained in the eye of the
law.
(i) Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents
have raised the issue of delay and laches. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in reply to the argument advanced by the
counsel for the respondents, that the plea of laches
and negligence cannot be raised in the matter of
regularization. In fact, for long the petitioners have
worked and when the services were not regularized,
despite working for more than two decades, the
petitioners have no option but to knock the door of this
Court by filing writ petitions for mandamus to
regularize their services.
Additionally, the petitioners have also prayed for
17
2026:JHHC:13583
quashing of the impugned orders, so as to avoid any
technicalities. This Court, therefore, holds that the
argument with respect to laches and negligence in the
matter of regularization of these petitioners is totally
misplaced and reliance placed on Sanjoy Guchhait
(Supra) is not applicable in the present set of facts and
circumstances.
The petitioners have rendered their services for
more than two decades and the respondents are
raising the point of delay and laches in filing the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This
contention of the Corporation is absolutely
misconceived. Merely because the writ petition is
preferred after the petitioners have rendered more than
two decades, the same cannot be thrown out on the
ground of laches and delay. Such plea cannot be
permitted to be raised in a matter of regularization.
(j) In paragraph-25 of the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(S) No. 1137 of 2022, the issue of memorandum
dated 07.10.2020 has been raised by the respondents.
This memorandum is placed at Annexure-9 of the writ
petition itself. This is a mere guideline issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievance and Pension; whereby the judgment and the
relevant paragraphs of Uma Devi’s (2006) 4 SCC 1
case are referred. This is mere a guideline as to how
the cases have to be defended. This cannot be a shield
for the respondents to deny the regularization of
employees who are working for more than two decades,
even being on contractual basis. This contention of the
respondent-Corporation is wholly misconceived.
18
2026:JHHC:13583
Conclusion
19. In light of what has been held above, and more
particularly the above cited binding precedents, all these
writ petitions deserve to be, and are, hereby allowed. The
common impugned order dated 27.09.2016 whereby the
grievances regarding regularization have been rejected and
order dated 10.01.2017 whereby the fresh representation(s)
of the petitioners has been rejected are quashed and set
aside. The Mandamus is issued to the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the
date they have completed ten years of service with all
consequential service benefits.
20. Accordingly, all these writ petitions stand allowed.
No order as to costs. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
29.04.2026
Amardeep/-
A . F . R .
Uploaded on
08.05.2026
19