Priya Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:9928

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 969 of 2025

¶4

Priya Kumari, aged about 37 years, wife of Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, resident of Santman Nagar, Road No.02, Old HB Road, Imam Kothi, Deepatoli, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi.

¶5

Subodh Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 51 years, son of Bipin Bihari Upadhyay, resident of Siyaram Nagar, Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh, presently residing at Flat No.503, Anjali Apartment (Behind K.C. Roy Memorial Hospital), P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Ranchi.

¶6

Mahwish Zabeen, aged about 38 years, daughter of Mohammad Imtiyaz Alam, resident of near Ranchi Public School, Firdous Colony, L.F. Road, Hindpiri, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Prem Kumar Tiwary son of Ramakant Tiwary presently posted and working as General Manager, Administration, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶9

Pradeep Kumar Sah son of Ramdhani Sah, presently posted and working as Establishment In-Charge, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶10

..... Contemnor(s)/Opposite Party(s) with

¶11

W.P.(S) No. 2981 of 2025

¶12

Priya Kumari, aged about 37 years, wife of Prabhat Kumar Agrawal, resident of Santman Nagar, Road No.02, Old HB Road, Imam Kothi, Deepatoli, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi.

¶13

Subodh Kumar Upadhyay, aged about 51 years, son of Bipin Bihari Upadhyay, resident of Siyaram Nagar, Ranchi Road, P.O. Marar, P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh, presently residing at Flat No.503, Anjali Apartment (Behind K.C. Roy Memorial Hospital), P.O. & P.S. -

1

2026:JHHC:9928

Lalpur, Ranchi.

Mahwish Zabeen, aged about 38 years, daughter of Mohammad Imtiyaz Alam, resident of near Ranchi Public School, Firdous Colony, L.F. Road, Hindpiri, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi. ..… Petitioner (s)

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶20

Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶21

The General Manager, Administration, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶22

M/s Evergreen Services, through its Authorized Representative, having its registered office at Shop No.F9, Housing Board Marketing Complex, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.

¶23

In-Charge Establishment, Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, having its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s)

¶24

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶25

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gyan Prakash Tiwari, A.C. to G.P.-III

¶26

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate M/s. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Rashi Sharma, Ruhi Dueby, Advocate

¶27

C.A.V. ON: 19/01/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:07/04/2026

¶28

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

2. The petitioners have challenged the letter bearing

¶30

No. 582 dated 09.05.2025 issued by the Jharkhand State

¶31

Mineral Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter

¶32

2

¶33

2026:JHHC:9928

¶34

referred to as “JSMDC”) by which an outsourced agency namely M/s Evergreen Services has been directed to provide a list of 8 eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Accountant in the JSMDC by 19.05.2025 and the candidates should appear alongwith their bio-data in the interview for engagement on contractual basis.

¶35

The petitioners have further prayed for a direction not to disengage them by replacing one set of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees and further the benefits of enhanced dearness allowance have also been claimed in view of the Resolution dated 18.02.2022 and 03.05.2023 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand.

¶36

Brief Facts

¶37

3. The petitioners were appointed on the basis of an annual contract to discharge the function of an Accountant during the period 2017-2019, pursuant to advertisement bearing Advertisement Notice No. 02/ 2016 and Recruitment Notice No. 02/2018 on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 29,060/-. The services of the petitioners have been extended from time to time.

¶38

Case of the petitioners

¶39

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were working on contractual basis as Accountants under

¶40

3

¶41

2026:JHHC:9928

¶42

JSMDC from 2017 or 2019, however, the JSMDC was replacing one set of contractual employees by appointing another group of contractual employees for the post of Accountant, which is contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶43

Case of the JSMDC

¶44

5. The petitioners are working for last 5 to 6 years and their case cannot be considered for regularization as there is no policy for regularization in JSMDC and in absence of any policy, no contractual employee has any vested right to claim regularization of service. The contractual employees can only be employed for a period of 5 years maximum in view of the decision taken by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand as contained in Memo No. 4063 dated 18.05.2016. The policy decision has been taken by the JSMDC for taking services from the outsourced agency.

¶45

Issues .

¶46

6. The issues which arise for consideration before this Court are as follows:-

¶47

i. Whether the services of the petitioners can be regularized in absence of any policy ?

¶48

ii. Whether one set of contractual employees can be replaced by another set of contractual employees ?

¶49

4

¶50

2026:JHHC:9928

¶51

iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of enhanced dearness allowance in view of the Resolution dated 18.02.2022 and 03.05.2023 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand ?

¶52

Regularisation

¶53

7. Though the petitioners are working for last 5 to 6 years their case cannot be considered for regularization as there is no policy for regularization under JSMDC and they have not questioned the same. In absence of any regularization policy, no contractual employee has any vested right to claim regularization of service. It is well settled principle of law that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless there exists a specific scheme or policy framed by the competent authority. The engagement of the petitioners on contractual basis is purely temporary in nature and does not confer any right for regular appointment in the absence of compliance with prescribed Recruitment Rules. The petitioners, being purely contractual appointees, have no enforceable legal or fundamental right to seek continuation, renewal, or regularization of their services.

¶54

8. Admittedly, in the present case the petitioners have not worked for more than 10 years and have not completed the minimum period of service required in view of the

¶55

5

¶56

2026:JHHC:9928

¶57

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma

¶58

Devi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , and there is no scheme or policy for regularization and hence, in the present case the claim for regularization is rejected and no directions can be given for framing a policy as the Courts generally cannot issue a writ of mandamus to compel the executive or legislature to frame a specific policy.

¶59

Replacement of Contractual Employees by another set of Contractual Employees

¶60

9. It is well settled that a contractual employee has no vested right to seek extension or renewal of contract. In Yogesh Mahajan v. AIIMS reported in (2018) 3 SCC 218, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a contractual employee cannot claim extension of service as a matter of right. Similarly, in Institute of Management Development v. Pushpa Srivastava reported in (1992) 4 SCC 33, it was held that upon expiry of the contractual period, the right to continue in service comes to an end. In the present case, the contracts of the petitioners have expired in the year 2025.

¶61

10. The terms of appointment unequivocally stipulate that the engagement was temporary, time-bound, and would automatically come to an end upon expiry of the

¶62

6

¶63

2026:JHHC:9928 contractual period. It is a settled proposition of law that contractual employment does not confer any right to continuation or renewal beyond the stipulated term. The relationship between the petitioners and the JSMDC is governed strictly by the terms and conditions of their respective contracts, which were for a fixed tenure and stood terminated by efflux of time.

¶64

11. The engagement of the petitioners was not continuous in the legal sense but consisted of a series of fixed-term contracts. Each extension granted to the petitioners constituted a fresh contractual engagement. 12. So far, the issue with respect to replacement of contractual employees by another set of contractual employees is concerned; there is decision taken by the Government which is contained in Memo No. 4063 dated 18.05.2016 which prescribes a minimum tenure of three years and a maximum tenure of five years for contractual employees. The said decision is binding upon all State instrumentalities, including the JSMDC. The JSMDC has brought on record the decision of the Government, which bars the JSMDC to engage any contractual employee for more than five years.

¶65

The petitioners have neither challenged the validity of the same; nor sought any relief against it.

¶66

7

¶67

2026:JHHC:9928

¶68

13. In the present case it is clearly established that the contractual services of the petitioners are not being replaced by another set of contractual employees; rather, the same is being replaced by outsourcing agency and the same is a policy decision and no challenge has been made towards the policy and hence, no relief can be granted.

¶69

14. The petitioners are at liberty to apply to the outsourced agency and their cases shall be considered sympathetically and in accordance with the work experience and qualifications and the admissible dues shall be paid to them regularly. It is expected that the petitioners shall work with utmost sincerity and integrity.

¶70

Enhanced Dearness

¶71

15. So far the claim of the petitioners with respect to grant of enhanced dearness allowances are concerned; the liberty is granted to the petitioners for making representation to the Managing Director, JSMDC and the same shall be considered by the Managing Director, JSMDC in accordance with the circular of Department of Finance, and if the petitioners are found to be entitled, the benefits shall be extended to them and in the event any adverse decision is taken the same shall be communicated to the petitioner by a reasoned order.

¶72

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 969 of 2025

¶73

8

¶74

2026:JHHC:9928

¶75

16. By an order dated 25.06.2025, in W.P.(s) No. 2981 of 2025 an interim order was passed that the petitioners shall not be disturbed by appointing any other employees on contractual basis. Alleging non-compliance of this order a contempt petition has been filed being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 969 of 2025, which was heard parallelly and is being disposed of by this common order.

¶76

17. The petitioners were removed/disturbed before the interim order dated 25.06.2025 was passed by this Court, hence there is no wilful, deliberate and intentional disobedience to the Court’s order which could have amounted to contempt and consequently the instant contempt is dropped. Pending IAs, if any, are closed.

¶77

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶78

Dated:07/04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 09.04.2026

¶79

9

Priya Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Govt. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Lal Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Raj Shekhar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Transport Department

Lalita Khess Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rabindra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand