Court holds that employees engaged for over a decade on perennial duties against sanctioned posts cannot be denied regularisation on technical grounds; disengagement without hearing termed arbitrary and mala fide.
The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the State government’s decision rejecting the regularisation of nine contractual employees working in the Health Department’s engineering cell and directed their reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Deepak Roshan in W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2025, the Court held that the petitioners—appointed as clerks, typists, drivers, office assistants and pump operators—had served continuously for more than 10 years and were performing perennial duties essential to the functioning of the department. Their disengagement, the Court said, was carried out without any formal order, without reasons, and without giving them a chance to be heard.
The petitioners had first approached the Court in earlier rounds of litigation seeking regularisation. A coordinate bench had earlier directed consideration of their claim, and the State’s challenge was dismissed in appeal. However, the department later rejected their case again through office orders dated 14 August 2024, citing lack of sanctioned posts, absence of competent authority approval, and non-compliance with recruitment procedures.
The High Court found these grounds untenable. Referring to official records, it noted that the appointment of the petitioners had in fact received approval from the Principal Secretary, and documents on record showed that they were working against sanctioned posts. The Court observed that the State’s own files contradicted its stand that the appointments were neither sanctioned nor approved.
The judgment also strongly criticised the manner in which the petitioners were kept out of service after they pursued legal remedies. The Court held that no citizen can suffer adverse consequences merely for approaching a court, and described the State’s conduct as arbitrary and mala fide. It said the discontinuation appeared to be a reprisal for seeking judicial relief.
Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings including Jaggo v. Union of India, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., R. Iyyappan v. Union of India, and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, the High Court reiterated that long-serving employees engaged in perennial work cannot be denied regularisation merely because of contractual nomenclature. It further held that such appointments, at worst, were irregular and not illegal, and therefore could not be rejected on a mechanical reading of the law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3).
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 14 August 2024 and directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits by issuing a formal order of regularisation within six weeks.
Bottom Line :
Service Law - Contractual employees engaged for more than ten years on perennial duties and against sanctioned posts cannot be denied regularisation on untenable grounds; their disengagement without formal order or hearing, particularly after approaching Court, is arbitrary, mala fide and violative of constitutional protections.
Statutory provision(s): Article 14, Article 16, Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Dharo Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985263
