Employees seeking regularization cannot be disengaged without court leave pending administrative consideration of their representation.

The petitioner was appointed as a "Data Entry Operator" in the Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, and has been working in a sanctioned post continuously since April 1, 2009.

Despite her long-term service, the petitioner alleged that her case for regularization had not been considered by the respondent authorities.

Consequently, she filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus for regularization/absorption of her services from the date of her initial appointment, along with all consequential and retiral benefits.

During the proceedings, the respondents suggested that the petitioner should approach the Secretary of the Department of Commercial Taxes for the redressal of her grievances.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization or absorption in her service as a Data Entry Operator based on her continuous employment in a sanctioned post since 2009.

2. Whether the respondent authorities are bound to consider the petitioner’s claim in light of established Supreme Court precedents regarding regularization.

The court primarily relied on the principles of service law and regularization established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Specifically, it cited Jaggo v. Union of India Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826) and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 129), which govern the criteria and legal framework for the regularization of temporary or contractual employees working against sanctioned posts for extended periods.

The Court did not rule on the merits of the regularization claim but focused on the administrative duty of the respondents to consider the petitioner's long-standing service.

Noting that the petitioner had been discharging her duties for over 16 years in a sanctioned post, the Court observed that her grievance necessitated a formal review by the competent authority.

By directing the petitioner to file a representation, the Court ensured that the executive branch—specifically the Secretary of the Department of Commercial Taxes—exercises its primary jurisdiction to evaluate the petitioner’s eligibility under the cited Supreme Court precedents.

To maintain the status quo and prevent administrative prejudice during the deliberation period, the Court invoked its equitable jurisdiction to protect the petitioner from disengagement and ensure the continuity of her salary payments.

The Court ordered Respondent No. 5 to take a decision and pass a reasoned order within two months of receipt.

The Court held that if the petitioner is found entitled to regularization, appropriate orders must be passed.

Crucially, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be disengaged during the intervening period without the Court's leave and that the respondents must ensure regular payment of her salary.