ANJANI KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY/ PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,

2026:JHHC:32276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 190 of 2025
1. Anjani Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Indra Deo
Prasad, resident of A.N. Singh Road, South Kusai Colony,
Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi.
2. Aakash Srivastava, aged about 36 years, son of Shri
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, resident of Devi Mandap Road,
Hesal, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi.
3. Anand Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Late Birendra
Kumar, resident of Nalanda Apartment, Flat No.006, Kilburn
Colony, Hinoo, P.O.-Hinoo, P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi.
4. Ashish Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Shri Umesh
Prasad Singh, resident of Near Bank Officers Colony, Devi
Mandap Road, Hesal, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.-Pandra,
District- Ranchi.
5. Dheeraj Kumar Swansi, aged about 35 years, son of Shri
Bhim Sen Swansi, resident of Mahavir Colony, Lowadih,
Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District- Ranchi.
6. Abhinav Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Shri
Akhilanand, resident of Road No.1, Shir Puri Colony, Katari
Hill Road, Gaya, P.O.-Gaya, P.S.-Chandauti, District- Gaya
(Bihar).
7. Veer Bahadur Venkat Singh, aged about 41 years, son of
Shri Kishto Prasad Mandal, resident of Kela Bari, Dhangersi,
P.O.-Sahebganj, P.S.-Jirwabari, District- Sahebganj.
8. Rajiv Kumar Gaurav, aged about 35 years, son of Shri
Rajendra Prasad, resident of Qr. No. B-126, Sector-3, HEC
Colony, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Hatia, District- Ranchi.
9. Amrendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Meghlal
Mahto, resident of Hethli Murgaon Bishnugarh, P.O. & P.S.-
Bishnugarh, District- Hazaribagh.
10. Sumit Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Shri
Parmeshwar Mahto, resident of Mahto Tola, Chhattar
Mandu, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
…… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal
Secretary, Road Construction Department, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and
District- Ranchi.
2. Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department
having office at F.F.P. Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority
(JSRRDA) through its Chief Executive Officer, having office
1

2026:JHHC:32276
at F.F.P. Building, 3rd Floor, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa,
Town & District- Ranchi. …… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Karamjit S. Chhabra, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III
For the Resp. No.3 : Dr. A.K.Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate


….…..

C.A.V. ON: 29/10/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:04/11/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners
for a direction upon the respondents to regularise their services
as they have been working for more than 10 years on the post of
Assistant Engineers pursuant to an Advertisement dated
22.07.2012. Petitioners have further prayed for appropriate relief
for which they are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
3. The facts pleaded in the writ petition are that an
Advertisement was issued on 22.07.2012 in daily “Dainik
Jagran” Ranchi Edition for appointment on the post of Assistant
Engineers. The total vacancy advertised was 50. The eligibility
criteria for such appointment were B.E./B.Tech. (Civil) for the
post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioners being eligible applied
and faced the selection process. The merit list was published on
28.12.2012 for the post of Assistant Engineers. Pursuant
2

2026:JHHC:32276
thereto, the petitioners were appointed, for which appointment
letters were issued by the Principal Secretary, Rural Works
Department who happens to be the Chief Executive Officer of
Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (for short
“JSRRDA”). The date of appointment of petitioners is reflected in
paragraph no.8 of the writ petition in following manner:-
Sl. No. Name of the Petitioners Date of appointment letter
1 Anjani Kumar 28.01.2013
2 Aakash Srivastava 04.02.2013
3 Anand Kumar 18.10.2013
4 Ashish Kumar 28.01.2013
5 Dheeraj Kumar Swansi 04.02.2013
6 Abhinav Kumar 18.10.2013
7 Veer Bhadur Venkat Singh 18.10.2013
8 Rajiv Kumar Gaurav 04.02.2013
9 Amrendra Kumar 04.02.2013
10 Sumit Kumar 18.10.2013

4. Thereafter the petitioners were given appropriate
posting after the verification of certificates of the petitioners. The
posting orders were issued on 07.02.2013, 18.02.2013 and
23.11.2013 with the approval of Principal Secretary, Rural Works
Department, Government of Jharkhand by Letter No.49 dated
06.01.2016. The Rural Works Department issued guidelines to
the effect that the employees, like the petitioners, are required to
be posted even in other State sponsored Schemes along with
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (for short “PMGSY”).
3

2026:JHHC:32276
5. Though the initial appointments were made on
contractual basis, but time to time services of the petitioners
were extended by the competent authority and the petitioners are
continuously discharging their work since the date of their
appointments. By Letter No.775 dated 01.08.2018 the
petitioners were allowed to discharge their duties exactly like that
of regularly appointed Assistant Engineers.
6. The petitioners have pleaded that they are working
against sanctioned and vacant posts and appointed pursuant to
an advertisement. The petitioners were also extended the
th th
benefits of 7 Pay Revision Committee Report (7 PRC). Earlier
the grade pay of the petitioners was 5400 but later on the
petitioners were put in Pay Level-9. The benefits of pay revision
were given to the petitioners only because the petitioners were
treated working against sanctioned and vacant post.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners’
appointment was made after following the roaster/reservation
policy of the State of Jharkhand. Since the petitioners completed
more than 10 years, they submitted representation on
19.11.2024 for regularization of their services but the same
yielded no fruitful result and hence the present writ petition.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents
stating, inter alia, that an advertisement was published in a
leading newspaper for appointment on the post of Assistant
4

2026:JHHC:32276
Engineers on behalf of Jharkhand State Rural Road Development
Authority. The appointments were made on contractual basis to
take care of the work load of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana
(PMGSY) .
9. The Department has issued Resolution No.1687 dated
26.06.2012 stipulating the terms and conditions of appointment
of Assistant Engineers/Junior Engineers. The petitioners
appeared in the selection process knowing fully well that their
appointments were contractual in nature. It is stated in the
appointment letters itself that the petitioners would not claim
regularisation or appointment in future on the said post.
10. Accordingly, the petitioners are bound by the terms and
conditions of appointment. Reference has been made to the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola
Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others , (L.P.A. No.390 of
2024); and Asha Rai & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand
(L.P.A. No.306 of 2023) to contend that similar issue has been
dealt with by the Division Bench and the claim for appointment
on contractual basis was rejected.
11. The judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has also been referred in
para 15 of the counter affidavit.
5

2026:JHHC:32276
12. After the petitioners filed rejoinder to the said counter
affidavit, a reply to the said rejoinder was also filed by the
respondents 1 to 3 reiterating the same facts.

13. Mr. Manoj Tandon, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are working now for
almost 13 years. The petitioners faced the selection process
which is not disputed by the respondents. The petitioners are
qualified to hold the post of Assistant Engineers. The petitioners
therefore are required to be regularised.
He further submits that though the petitioners are
discharging their duties as regular employee but still the
respondents are treating the appointment of the petitioners on
contractual basis just to deny the legitimate claim of the
petitioners. He additionally submits that the pay of an employee
is revised only when he or she is appointed on a sanctioned and
vacant post.
14. He further submits that though the petitioners were
th
appointed when 6 Pay Revision was in vogue, but later on the
th
benefits of 7 PRC was also extended to the petitioners. This
itself connotes that though the appointments of the petitioners
are regular in nature but they are constrained to work under the
nomenclature of contractual employees.
15. Mr. Tandon further submits that the respondents have
basically relied upon a judgment in the case of Bhola Nath Vs.
6

2026:JHHC:32276
State of Jharkhand (L.P.A. No.390 of 2024) , which is placed
at Page No.72 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
He submits that it is true that the Division Bench of this Court
held that the contractual employees are not entitled for
regularisation but at the same time it is also equally true that
the said judgement of the Division Bench was set aside by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhola Nath Vs.
State of Jharkhand , reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129
with a direction to regularise the services of contractual
employees.

16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon
the judgment reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 (Vinod Kumar &
Others Vs. Union of India & Ors. ) to contend that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India directed for regularization of those who
were working in a particular scheme. He submits that the
continuous service of petitioners performing same duties as
regular employees is indistinguishable from those in permanent
post. On the basis of this judgment Mr. Tandon submits that the
failure to recognize the substantive nature of the role of the
petitioners and their continuous service akin to permanent
employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and
the intent behind employment rules. Therefore, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition
7

2026:JHHC:32276
deserves to be allowed by directing the regularisation of services
of the petitioners.
17. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, appears for the respondent-State of
Jharkhand & Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, appears for respondent
no.3 (JSRRDA). On the basis of the averments made in the
counter affidavit, the Ld. Counsels for the respondents submit
that no case has been made out by the petitioners for
regularisation of their services. The learned Counsel for the
respondents relied upon Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs.
Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1; Jaggo Vs. Union of
India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and
other similar case laws.
18. It is the contention of the respondents that the
petitioners are working in a Scheme and hence their services
cannot be regularised. It has been submitted by the respondents
that petitioners do not have indefeasible right of regularization.
19. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and upon
perusal of the materials on record, the writ petition is fit to be
allowed on the following grounds:-
(a) It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working
for more than 10 years as they were appointed in the
year 2013 itself and still continuing.
(b) It is also not disputed that the appointment was
preceded by an advertisement and that after following
8

2026:JHHC:32276
the selection process these petitioners were appointed.
(c) It is also not in dispute that the petitioners possess
the requisite qualification for the post. This is so because
the requisite qualification for appointment as per the
advertisement was B.E./B.Tech. (Civil), which the
petitioners possessed.
(d) It has also not been disputed that though the nature
of appointment was contractual but time to time the
service of the petitioners were extended. From the facts
of the case, it is clear that the petitioners are discharging
their duties akin to the regularly appointed Assistant
Engineers.
(e) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that petitioners are working in a Scheme and
hence not entitled for regularisation. The facts, however,
reveal that the petitioners are discharging the same duty
as that of a regularly appointed Assistant Engineers.
The issue as to whether an employee working in a
Scheme can be regularized or not fell for consideration
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Vinod Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India (supra) . The
facts of Vinod Kumar (supra ) are that they were
working in a Scheme but they faced selection process.
The petitioners of that case claimed regularisation but
9

2026:JHHC:32276
the same was rejected, which led to filing of an Original
Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the ground
that the appointments were temporary and for a specific
Scheme and hence not fit for regularisation or
absorption into permanent post. A writ petition was filed
challenging the order of the Tribunal before the High
Court which upheld the order of the learned Tribunal
observing that the appointment of the employees was
under a temporary scheme which could not confer upon
them the right to claim regularisation. Such observation
was made referring the judgement in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3).
This was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
continuous service of the appellants therein, performing
duties were indistinguishable from those in permanent
post. It was further held that the failure to recognize the
substantive nature of their roles and their continuous
service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the
principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind
employment regulations. For ready reference
paragraphs no.8 and 9 of the Vinod Kumar (Supra) are
reproduced in extenso:-
10

2026:JHHC:32276
“8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Courts
finds merit in the appellants’ arguments and holds that their
service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a
reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure
to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their
continuous service akin to permanent employees runs
counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent
behind employment regulations.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment
of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled
to be considered for regularisation in their respective posts.
The respondents are directed to complete the process of
regularisation within 3 months from the date of service of this
judgment.”
[emphasis supplied]

Therefore, the net result is that the persons
working in a specific scheme were also directed to be
regularised. In view of such binding precedent in the case of
Vinod Kumar (supra), this Court holds that the petitioners,
though working in a Scheme, are entitled for regularisation
of their services.
(f) From perusal of the counter affidavit and the documents
annexed thereto it is evident that the respondents basically
relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in
L.P.A. No.390 of 2024 (Bhola Nath Vs. State of
th
Jharkhand) , decided on 17 September, 2024. The Division
Bench judgment of this Court, of course, held that a
contractual employee is not entitled for regularisation, as is
apparent from Para 38 thereof (running page 91 of the
counter affidavit filed by respondents), but this judgement of
the Division Bench was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of
th
Jharkhand , decided on 30 January, 2026 and the same is
11

2026:JHHC:32276
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129 . The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after considering all the previous judgments relevant
to the facts of the case, held that the State of Jharkhand was
not justified in continuing such employees on sanctioned
vacant post for over a decade under the nomenclature of
contractual engagement and thereafter denying them
consideration for regularisation. Paragraphs no.14 and 15
are profitable to reproduce: -
“ 14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs,
we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the
appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under
the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter
denying them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature,
without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking
order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of
fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot
immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi
(supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving
employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and
constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent State to forthwith regularize the services of all the
appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were
initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all
consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this
judgment.

15. Accordingly, the present appeals are disposed of and all
th
writ petitions are allowed and the judgments dated 17
September, 2024, 15th October, 2024 and 2nd December,
2024, in LPA Nos. 390 of 2024, 356 of 2024 and 368 of 2024,
respectively, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
are set aside.”
[emphasis supplied]

20. During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for
the respondent, Dr. Singh submitted that Bhola Nath (supra) may
12

2026:JHHC:32276
not apply to the facts of this case, though the Division Bench
judgement in the case of Bhola Nath was annexed with the very
counter affidavit filed by the respondents, to contend that the
writ petition deserves dismissal, as the Division Bench has
denied such regularisation of such contractual employees.
21. This argument is absolutely fallacious. Once the
respondent itself relied upon Bhola Nath (supra) of Division
Bench to reject the claim of the petitioners, the respondents are
duty bound to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Bhola Nath (supra) , as the judgement of the
Division Bench has been set aside by holding that the
contractual employees are also entitled for regularisation.
22. Another judgment, Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others ,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 has also been relied
upon by the learned Counsel Dr. Singh, appearing for the
concerned respondent. However, on perusal of this judgment in
its entirety it would be evident that this judgment favours the
case of the petitioners. The facts of that case are that the
employees were originally engaged by the Central Water
Commission on part-time and ad-hoc on terms on various posts.
The employees claimed regularisation and filed Original
Application before the Tribunal. They submitted that though they
were working as part-time or contractual basis but they were
performing the same duties as regular employees and the work
13

2026:JHHC:32276
was perennial in nature but the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on
the ground that the appellants of that case were not engaged on
what it considered “regular vacancies” and they were not
discharging full-time service.
A writ petition was before the High Court, but the High
Court also dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the
petitioners of that case were part-time workers and were not
appointed against sanctioned posts. This gave rise to filing of
SLP(c) No.5580 of 2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court after
examining each and every aspect of the matter including nature
of duties, absence of performance issues, compliance with ‘Uma
Devi’ guidelines, discrimination in regularisation, irrelevance of
educational qualification, and equity and fairness, held that such
employees were entitled for regularisation of their services.
While setting aside the orders of the High Court and that
of the Tribunal the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed for
regularisation of their services. The ratio laid down are in
paragraphs 10, 12 and 16, which are profitable to place herein
below in extenso:-
“10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions
advanced and the material on record, we find that the
appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods
extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside
merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or
contractual. The essence of their employment must be
considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the
integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious
route.
12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the
appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and
14

2026:JHHC:32276
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.
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]
The aforesaid judgment was rendered after noticing
Uma Devi (3). This Court, therefore, is left with no option but to
hold that the petitioners in this case are entitled for
regularisation.
From the facts of the present case, it clearly transpires
that though the petitioners were appointed and the
appointments were labelled as “contractual in nature”, but the
petitioners are, in fact, working like regularly appointed
employees. The finding of this Court to this extent is based on
the facts that even the pay of the petitioners was revised time to
time.
th
The petitioners were initially appointed in 6 PRC but
th
later on when 7 PRC came into effect, such benefits were
extended to the petitioners. There is specific pleading to this
effect which has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore,
it appears that though nature of appointment is permanent but
15

2026:JHHC:32276
the same has been given the colour of contractual appointment
just to deny the legitimate claim of employees like the petitioners
who have rendered their services for more than a decade.
Since the petitioners have rendered satisfactory service
of more than 10 years, they are entitled for regularisation on
completion of 10 years of their services.

23. In view of the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition
stands allowed. The Respondents are directed to regularise the
services of the petitioners with effect from the date they have
completed 10 years of service. All consequential benefits must be
extended to the petitioners like regular employees. The
respondents would complete the entire exercise within a period
of 10 weeks with effect from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this judgement.
24. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:04 /11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded
5.11.2026




16