BIRENDRA PRASAD vs THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

2026:JHHC:30970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4283 of 2025
1a. Amita Kumari, aged about 44 years, wife of Late Birendra
Prasad, resident of Lalu Toli, Village & P.O. Sikriyadanr, P.S.
Pakardanr, District Simdega-835228 (Jharkhand).
2. Atul Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Shambhu Nath
Pandey, resident of village Matwari (Bhuiyan Toli Road), P.O. & P.S.
Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh-835301 (Jharkhand).
3. Ajay Kumar, aged about 48 years, son of Late Ambika Prasad
Singh, resident of Kotal Pokhar, P.O. & P.S. Kotal Pokhar, District
Sahebganj-816105 (Jharkhand).
4. Pravir Kumar Sinha, aged about 49 years, son of Kumud
Prasad Rama, resident of Shankarpur, P.O. & P.S. Meharma, District
Godda-814160 (Jharkhand).
5. Manish Kumar Tudu, aged about 41 years, son of Jedha Tudu,
resident of Sangrampur, Kaswa, Arji Makimpur, P.O. Mangalhat, P.S.
Rajmahal, District Sahebganj-816129 (Jharkhand).
6. Anil Kumar Pal @ Anil Kumar Paul, aged about 44 years, son
of Mahadev Pal, resident of Kalyani (Mina Bazar), Maharajpur Bazar,
P.O. and P.S. Maharajpur, District Sahebganj-816109 (Jharkhand).
7. Ahasan Farooque @ Ahasan Farque, aged about 56 years, son
of Md. Farooque Barqandaz Toli, resident of Bara Bazar, Chaibasa,
P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa-833201
(Jharkhand).
8. Sayed Asad Hussain @ Sayed Asad Hussain, son of Late
Asyed Akramul Hussain, resident of C/o S.A. Hussain, Mohallah
Nimdih, near S.P.G. Mission Ground, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District
West Singhbhum at Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand).
9. Suresh Chandra Jha, aged about 50 years, son of Late Harish
Chandra Jha, resident of House No. 121, Jayprakash Nagar, Arsande,
Boreya, P.O. Boreya, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi-834006
(Jharkhand).
10. Ram Bilas Pandit, aged about 51 years, son of Annirudh
Pandit, resident of Dhapra, Godda, Maheshtikri, P.O. Maheshtikri,
P.S. Basantaray, District Godda-814155 (Jharkhand).
11. Usha Kiran, aged about 50 years, wife of Sri Ravindra
Prakash, resident of Ward No. 13, Lohiya Nagar, Godda, P.O. & P.S.
Godda, District Godda-814133 (Jharkhand).
…… Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare, 22, Shamnath Marg, New Delhi-110054.
1

2026:JHHC:30970

2. National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme,
Government of India, through its Director, having its office at 22,
Shamnath Marg, New Delhi-110054.
3. The State of Jharkhand, through the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.
Doranda, Ranchi-834002, District Ranchi.
4. Directorate of Health Services, through its Director-in-Chief,
having its office at R.C.H. Campus, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi-834010.
5. National Health Mission, through its Mission Director, having
its office at R.C.H. Campus, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi-834010.
6. State Programme Officer (Vector Borne Disease)-cum-State
Vector Borne Disease Officer, having its office at R.C.H. Campus,
Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi-834010.
…… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Shivam Singh, A.C. to S.C.II.
For the Union of India : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI



CAV on 06.10.2026 Pronounced on 15.10.2026
1. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of
Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the order, as contained in Memo
No.882(24) dated 28.4.2025 (Annexure-10) passed by Respondent no.3,
wherein claim of petitioners for appointment by way of absorption/
regularization on the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor (MTS)/ Kala-
azar Technical Supervisor (KTS) has been rejected;
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/ direction. including Writ of
Mandamus, directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to consider the
cases of the present petitioners for their absorption/ appointment in
regular pay-scale in parity with the appointments made by Respondent-
State of Jharkhand of similarly situated persons holding the post of
Multipurpose Worker(Male) (hereinafter referred to as 'MPW(M)' for
short);
2

2026:JHHC:30970

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ
of Mandamus, directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand not to
discriminate the case of the petitioners with that of similarly situated
persons holding the post of MPWs(M), especially because the petitioners
have also been appointed under the Vector Borne Programme in the
same mode and manner with that of MPWs(M);
(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ
of Declaration, declaring that the action of the Respondent-State of
Jharkhand in only creating regular post with regular pay-scale of
MPW(M) is discriminatory in nature specially because the petitioners
are also entitled for similar treatment to that of the persons holding the
post of MPW(M), keeping in view the fact that appointments of the
petitioners and the holders of the post of MPW(M) were commonly made
under the Vector Borne Disease (for short 'VBD') Programme
implemented in the State of Jharkhand;
(v) In alternative to the prayer made above in sub-paras (ii) to (iv), the
petitioners pray for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction,
including Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents-authorities to
consider and absorb the services of the petitioners on the post of Malaria
Inspector on regular basis especially because the post of Malaria
Inspector are sanctioned and lying vacant in the State of Jharkhand and
the petitioners are admittedly performing the same nature of duties and
functions to that of Malaria Inspectors; and
(vi) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case .
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of
India, launched the National Vector Borne Disease Control
Programme in the year 2003-04, now implemented under the
framework of the National Health Mission, for prevention and control
of six major vector-borne diseases. In Jharkhand, with its heavy forest
cover, large tribal population and high burden of Malaria and Kala-
azar, the programme has immense significance. For its
implementation, State of Jharkhand created supervisory as well as
non-supervisory field positions. The MTS and KTS are supervisory
field functionaries who form the link between the District Medical
Officers and the grassroots workers, while Multi-Purpose Workers
(Male) [MPWs (M)] are the non-supervisory field workers.
3

2026:JHHC:30970

4. In March 2008, the Central Government declared Jharkhand a
Malaria-endemic State, with all 24 districts affected by Malaria, 17 by
Filaria and 4 by Kala-azar. The State thereupon engaged MTS, KTS
and MPWs(M) on contractual basis.
5. The Petitioners except Late Birendra Prasad, who died during
th
pendency of the writ petition on 24 September, 2025, his widow
being the legal heir namely, Amita Kumari was substituted as
Petitioner no.1 vide order passed by this Court; were appointed as
MTS and KTS by Respondent-State of Jharkhand on contract basis
pursuant to advertisements issued from time to time. Their
appointments were initially for one year but, in view of the perennial
nature of the work, the contracts of the petitioners, as also of the
MPWs (M), have been renewed from time to time. The posts held by
the petitioners are supervisory, district-cadre posts, and the MPWs(M)
engaged under the same programme work directly under their
supervision. The particulars of the petitioners are as under:-
Sl.
No.
Name of Petitioner Post Date of
Appointment
District of
Present Posting
Years in
Service
1. Birendra Prasad
(since deceased)
MTS 23.06.2010 Ranchi 16
2. Atul Kumar MTS 27.02.2009 Ranchi 17
3. Ajay Kumar MTS 06.04.2010 Sahebganj 16
4. Pravir Kumar Sinha MTS 27.02.2009 Sahebganj 17
5. Manish Kumar Tudu KTS 06.04.2012 Sahebganj 14
6. Anil Kumar Pal MTS 01.10.2008 Sahebganj 18
7. Ahasan Farooque MTS 01.10.2008 West Singhbhum 18
8. Sayed Asad Hussain MTS 01.10.2008 Saraikela-
Kharsawan
18
9. Suresh Chandra Jha MTS 27.02.2009 Godda 17
10. Ram Bilas Pandit KTS 13.07.2010 Godda 16
11. Usha Kiran KTS 13.07.2010 Godda 16

6. By communication dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure-3), the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed all State Governments
to frame a clear plan for augmentation of human resources by creation
4

2026:JHHC:30970

of posts, and specifically to move away from contractual engagements
to the creation of regular posts, both for human resources and for
programme management. The Respondent-State, however, neither
created regular supervisory posts, nor framed any policy for
absorption of the petitioners.
7. By letter dated 23.06.2014, the Central Government informed
Respondent State of Jharkhand that it would not support the
manpower of MPWs (M) beyond 30.09.2014. Shortly thereafter, by
letter dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure-6), Respondent No. 2, through its
Additional Director, directed the State to initiate action for sustaining
the manpower under the VBD Programme, making it clear that
Central Government would not support the manpower component
after 31.03.2017.
8. The withdrawal of central support led to the disengagement of
approximately 2,300 MPWs (M) across State of Jharkhand. The post
of MPWs(M) being perennial in nature, the Department of Health and
Family Welfare, by letter dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure-4),
recommended the creation of 2,150 posts of MPWs(M), and in a
meeting held on 27.08.2015 the State decided to appoint MPWs(M)
on contract basis in regular pay-scale. Recruitment was thereafter
initiated by Advertisement No. 13/2015 dated 22.12.2015 ( Annexure-
5). Thus, though belatedly, the State acted upon the directive of the
Government of India in respect of MPWs(M); no similar step was
taken in respect of the petitioners.
9. Facing the loss of their livelihood after 31.03.2017, Petitioners
approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016. In paragraph 13
of its supplementary counter affidavit, Respondent-State stated that
the proposal for absorption of the KTS and MTS at par with
MPWs(M) had been sent to the higher authorities, and that a final
decision would be taken after reference to the Law Department, the
5

2026:JHHC:30970

Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, and
the Finance Department.
10. On the strength of that statement, the writ petition was
disposed of by judgment dated 10.09.2018 ( Annexure-7), with a
direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Education
and Family Welfare, and the Director-in-Chief, Directorate of Health
Services, that, the scheme being still subsisting in the State and the
cases of the petitioners being at par with those of MPWs(M), a
conscious decision be taken for regularisation/absorption of the
services of the petitioners in accordance with law.
11. However, No such decision was taken. Instead, after a delay of
more than three years, the State preferred L.P.A. No. 212 of 2022,
which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 03.05.2023
(Annexure-8) on the ground of delay. The State then approached the
Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 37881 of 2023 , which
was disposed of on 21.02.2025 (Annexure-9) with a direction to the
State to consider the case of the petitioners on its own merits.
12. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order
dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-10) rejecting the claim of the petitioners
on three grounds, namely:
(a) The petitioners were engaged purely on contractual
basis under a temporary centrally sponsored scheme;
(b) Their honorarium is paid out of funds provided by
Central Government; and
(c) There are no sanctioned posts in the State against
which they can be regularised.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India.
6

2026:JHHC:30970

14. It has been submitted that petitioners having due qualifications
prescribed for the posts of MTS and KTS, were appointed pursuant to
public advertisements, and have continuously discharged supervisory
duties under the VBD Programme for 14 to 18 years. The work is
perennial, as the State itself has recognised in the case of MPWs (M).
15. It has been contended that despite the directions of the Central
Government dated 21.12.2011 and 02.07.2014, the State has taken no
step to create regular posts of technical supervisors or to frame any
policy for sustaining the manpower under the VBD Programme.
16. It has been urged that the case of the petitioners is identical to
that of the MPWs (M): both were engaged under the same
programme, in the same mode and manner, and both have been
continued by annual renewals. The MPWs (M) in fact work under the
supervision of the petitioners. Having created 2,150 posts for the
MPWs (M) notwithstanding the withdrawal of central support, the
State could not deny the same treatment to their supervisors i.e. the
petitioners. This plea of discrimination, it is submitted, has not been
dealt with at all in the impugned order.
17. It was also submitted that the impugned order disregards the
stand taken by the respondent State on affidavit in W.P. (S) No. 5037
of 2016 . The State having undertaken that the claim would be decided
after reference to the Law, Personnel and Finance Departments, the
impugned order does not even disclose that such reference was made.
18. In the alternative, it was submitted that the functions, duties
and qualifications of the posts held by the petitioners are the same as
those of the post of Malaria Inspector, and several sanctioned posts of
Malaria Inspector are lying vacant in the Respondent State, and that
the petitioners ought at least to have been considered for absorption
against those posts. This aspect, too, has not been considered.
19. Reliance is placed upon Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. , 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-
7

2026:JHHC:30970

“25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to
evade long-term obligations owed to employees. …”
“27. … In our opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable
employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes international
labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal
challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and
uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant
to embody. …”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
20. Learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the
National Health Mission is a centrally sponsored scheme under which
engagements are made on temporary and contractual basis as part of
the programme arrangements.
21. It was also submitted that the petitioners were not appointed
against regular sanctioned posts of the Health Department, but against
need-based positions, and that their honorarium is paid out of the
funds made available to National Health Mission, Jharkhand by the
Government of India. They are, therefore, temporary contractual
employees of the Jharkhand Health Mission.
22. It was further submitted that the National Health Mission,
Jharkhand implements the schemes of the Government of India on the
basis of an annual work plan and budget. The Government of India
and the State contribute 60% and 40% of the budget respectively, and
the posts required for programme implementation are approved
annually by the National Health Mission, New Delhi. Personnel are
engaged for one year at a time and, if the need persists, their contracts
are extended for a further year after annual performance evaluation.
23. Lastly, it was pointed out that the appointment letters of the
petitioners expressly stated that their appointment was purely
8

2026:JHHC:30970

temporary and on contract, and that no claim to regular appointment
would be entertained.
FINDINGS
24. The facts leading to the present controversy are not in dispute.
In W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016 , Respondent-State of Jharkhand stated
on affidavit that the proposal for absorption of the Petitioners at par
with MPWs(M) had been sent to the higher authorities, and that a final
decision would be taken after the matter was examined by the Law
Department, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
and Rajbhasha, and the Finance Department. The writ petition was
disposed of on the strength of that statement. The State’s appeal
against that judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay, and its
Special Leave Petition was disposed of with a direction to reconsider
the case on its own merits.
25. From the above narrated admitted facts, two consequences
follow. Firstly , the State’s challenge having failed at every stage, the
judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016 has attained finality,
and the State remains bound by the stand recorded therein. Secondly ,
the State was obliged to consider the claim of the petitioners on its
merits, by a reasoned decision, and through the very process which it
had itself represented to this Court.
26. A statement made by the State on affidavit before a Court of
law is not an empty formality. Having represented that the claim of
the petitioners would be decided after examination by the Law,
Personnel and Finance Departments, the State cannot be permitted to
take a contrary course and reject the claim without undertaking that
exercise. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
27. Equally, a direction to consider a claim “on its own merits”
requires a real, objective and reasoned consideration of that claim. It is
not satisfied by a recital of the claim followed by its rejection.
Reasons are the link between the material on record and the
9

2026:JHHC:30970

conclusion reached, and an administrative order affecting the rights of
employees must disclose them.
28. Tested on these principles, the impugned order does not
withstand scrutiny. It does not disclose that the matter was ever placed
before the Law Department, the Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, or the Finance Department;
nor does it refer to any opinion of those Departments. It does not deal
with the petitioners’ alternative claim for absorption against the vacant
posts of Malaria Inspector. The order is cryptic and non-speaking, and
it is not a consideration of the case on its own merits as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
29. Apart from the above, on the question of parity also, the
Petitioners’ claim was not considered. It is not in dispute that the
petitioners as well as the MPWs (M) were engaged by the
Respondent-State under the VBD Programme, on contract basis,
pursuant to advertisements issued from time to time, and that, in view
of the perennial nature of the work, the contracts of both were
renewed year after year. It is equally undisputed that the MPWs (M)
work directly under the supervision of the petitioners in the field.
30. When the Central Government withdrew its support for the
MPWs (M) with effect from 30.09.2014, the State did not treat that
withdrawal as the end of the matter. Recognising that the work was
perennial, it recommended the creation of 2,150 posts of MPWs (M)
and decided to engage them in regular pay-scale. The State’s own
conduct thus shows that neither the source of funding, nor the absence
of sanctioned posts, was regarded by it as an insurmountable obstacle
where the work was perennial.
31. The respondents have offered no reason, either in the
impugned order or before this Court, as to why the supervisors
engaged under the same programme should be treated differently from
the field workers whom they supervise. Unequal treatment of persons
10

2026:JHHC:30970

who are similarly situated, without any intelligible differentia having a
rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, is the very
antithesis of Article 14.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of decisions
that selective regularisation of some workers in the same
establishment, while others with comparable tenure and duties are left
on precarious terms, is a clear violation of equity. The denial of parity
to the petitioners is, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Point (ii) is answered in favour
of the petitioners.
32. The objections raised by the State, namely that the petitioners
are contractual, that they are engaged under a centrally sponsored
scheme and paid out of central funds, and that there are no sanctioned
posts, must be examined in the light of the settled position of law.
33. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) , (2006) 4
SCC 1, the Constitution Bench drew a distinction between
appointments that are illegal and those that are merely irregular, and
itself contemplated in paragraph 53, a one-time measure for
regularising persons who had served for ten years or more against
duly sanctioned posts without the cover of orders of courts or
tribunals.
In the instant case, the petitioners were not engaged through
any back door. They were appointed pursuant to public
advertisements, possessing the prescribed qualifications, and have
served continuously for 14 to 18 years. Their engagement cannot be
described as illegal.
34. The objection that there are no sanctioned posts stands on no
better footing. The absence of sanctioned posts is the direct result of
the Respondent State’s own inaction in the face of the Central
Government’s communications dated 21.12.2011 and 02.07.2014,
which specifically called upon the Respondent State to create regular
11

2026:JHHC:30970

posts and to plan for sustaining the manpower under the VBD
Programme. The State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its
own default, particularly when, in the case of the MPWs(M), it found
it possible to create posts.
35. Nor can the label of 1-year contractual engagement be
decisive. The respondents’ own case is that contracts are renewed only
where the need persists. The uninterrupted renewal of the petitioners’
contracts for 14 to 18 years is, by the respondents’ own test, proof that
the need is permanent. Similarly, the stipulation in the appointment
letters that no claim to regular appointment would be entertained
cannot override the constitutional guarantee of equality, more so when
the employee had no real choice but to accept the terms offered by the
State.
36. The State itself recognised the perennial nature of the work
under the VBD Programme by creating posts for the MPWs(M); it
represented to this Court on affidavit that the absorption of the
petitioners at par with MPWs(M) was under active consideration; and
it has, for over eight years since, neither taken a decision, nor offered
any reason for its inaction.
In Dharam Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1735, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in comparable
circumstances, directed the creation of supernumerary posts for the
regularisation of long-serving workers. Remitting the matter yet again
for consideration would, in these circumstances, serve no purpose and
would only prolong the uncertainty which the petitioners have
endured for decades.
37. Having regard to the above discussions, this Court hold that
the impugned order is contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and to the stand of the Respondent-State recorded on affidavit,
and is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. The sustained service rendered by the petitioners for over a
12

2026:JHHC:30970

decade, on work which the State itself treats as perennial, entitles
them to regularisation, and its denial would perpetuate a manifest
injustice.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
38. This writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the following
directions are issued:-
(i) The order contained in Memo No. 882(24) dated 28.04.2025
passed by Respondent No. 3, rejecting the claim of the
petitioners for absorption/regularisation, is hereby quashed
and set aside.
(ii) The Respondent-State of Jharkhand, through the Additional
Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, and the Director-in-
Chief, Directorate of Health Services, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, shall create regular posts (or, if necessary,
supernumerary posts) of Malaria Technical Supervisor and
Kala-azar Technical Supervisor, and shall regularise/absorb
the services of the petitioners against those posts from the date
of initial appointment of Petitioners including Birendra Prasad
(since deceased) on the same pay-scale which is payable to
Malaria Inspector.
(iii) In the event regular posts of MTS/KTS are not created within
the aforesaid period, the respondents shall absorb the
petitioners on regular basis against the sanctioned and vacant
posts of Malaria Inspector.
(iv) Until the aforesaid exercise is completed, the services of the
petitioners shall not be disengaged, and they shall continue to
be paid in the manner they are presently being paid.
(v) Upon absorption, the petitioners shall be entitled to continuity
of service for the purposes of seniority and pensionary
13

2026:JHHC:30970

benefits, with notional fixation of pay with effect from the
date of their initial appointment. However, actual monetary
benefits shall be payable from the date of this judgment.
(vi) The case of the original Petitioner No. 1, Birendra Prasad, who
died on 24.09.2025, shall be treated as if he had been
regularised with effect from the aforesaid date, and such
terminal and other benefits as would be admissible on that
basis shall be released to his substituted legal heir.
(vii) The entire exercise by issuing necessary orders with respect to
each petitioners as indicated hereinabove, shall be completed
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
39. It is made clear that this Court has been constrained to issue
the aforesaid directions in view of the conduct of the Respondent-
State. The State failed to act upon its own statement made on affidavit
before this Court; its appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay;
and it failed to consider the claim of the petitioners on its own merits
despite the specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Any
further failure on the part of the respondents to comply with this
judgment within the stipulated period shall be viewed seriously.
40. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the
Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, for immediate compliance.
41. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.


(Deepak Roshan, J.)
15 /10/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
16.10.2026
14