Jharkhand Rajya Asthaiya Vidyut Karamchari Sangh through Its Secretary Sri Ashok Kumar Giri Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:3622-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

-----

¶4

Cont.Case (Civil) No. 622 of 2024

¶5

-----

¶6

Jharkhand Rajya Asthaiya Vidyut Karamchari Sangh, registered Trade Union having Registration No. 19/2001 and registered office at Road No.1, Sankosai, PO and PS MGM Medical College, Dimna Road, Mango,Jamshedpur,District East Singhbhum, through its Secretary Sri Ashok Kumar Giri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Ram Swarath Giri, resident of Road No.1, Sankosai, PO and PS MGM Medical College, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.

¶7

Ashok Kumar Giri, aged about 49 years, son of Sri Ram Swarath Giri, resident of Road No.1, Sankosai, PO and PS MGM Medical College, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. …… …Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director.

¶11

Abinash Kumar, son of not known to the petitioners, Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Jharkhand, Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶12

Sunil Dutt Xaxa, son of not known to the petitioners, General Manager (P & GA), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, PO: Dhurwa, PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. …… …O.P.(s)

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate For the O.P.(S) : Mr. Gaurang Jadodia, AC to GP-II; Mr. Abhijeet Anand, AC to SC

¶17

¶18

Order No.05/Dated:11^th February,2026

¶19

The instant contempt case has been filed for deliberate and conscious violation of the order dated 15.9.2022 passed by this Court in LPA No. 328 of 2017.

¶20

The matter pertains to the issue of regularization of the petitioners in service.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned opposite parties has submitted that LPA No. 328 of 2017 which is the subject matter of the present contempt case has been disposed of in the light of the observations made in paragraph no.5 thereof wherein this court has directed the respondents to conclude the process of regularization expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It has further been submitted that issue of regularization has been taken up based upon the

¶22

2026:JHHC:3622-DB

¶23

policy decision formulated by the establishment concerned. The employees have been regularized but the employees who have not found working under the sanctioned strength have been left out.

¶24

Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that issue of working under the sanctioned post is now no matter rather length of service rendered by one or other employee(s) even on contractual basis is the paramount consideration as per the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel(s) for the parties. As has been submitted on behalf of the concerned opposite parties that the issue of regularization has been taken up and based upon the policy decision the members of the petitioners have been regularized in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors . [2006] 4 SCC 1 . However, some of the members of the Sangh have not been regularized since they have not found working under the sanctioned strength.

¶26

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that issue of working under the sanctioned strength is now no matter in view of the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that cannot be subject matter of the contempt case rather fresh cause of action to be agitated before the appropriate forum.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant contempt case is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved with the aggrieved party(s) to ventilate their grievance before the appropriate forum.

¶28

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶29

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶30

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶31

Date:11/02/2026 KNR/ Uploaded On:13/ 02/2026

Jharkhand Rajya Asthaiya Vidyut Karamchari Sangh through Its Secretary Sri Ashok Kumar Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jharkhand Rajya Asthaiya Vidyut Karamchari Sangh through Its Secretary Sri Ashok Kumar Giri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hukum Lal B.P. Vs Meghwati Devi Alias Jyoti Chouhan

Kuldeep Bediya Vs M/S Central Coalfields Limited through Its C.M.D.

Arjun Sah Vs the Union of India through Additional Secretary Vice Chairman Cum Appellate Authority of K v S

Mahadev Enclave Private Limited through Its Manager Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Mahadev Enclave Private Limited through Its Manager Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Mines and Geology

Mahadev Enclave Private Limited through Its Manager Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Mines and Geology