Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand, Thro Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:27885

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 7213 of 2026

¶4

Ravi Kumar, age- 39 years, S/o-Paran Ram, R/o-New Colony Bagicha, Ward No.3 P.O.- & P.S. Ramgarh Cantt, District- Ramgarh, (Jharkhand).

¶5

Sourabh Kumar Ram, age- 42 years, S/o- Sri Bhikhari ram, R/oC/o-Gupta General Store, Aashram Road, New BargandaP.O.& P.S.GiridihDistrict-Giridih, (Jharkhand).

¶6

Sumit Kumar Mishra, age- 39 years, S/o-Giri Raj Nandan Mishra, R/o-C/o-Giri Raj Nandan Mishra, C-13, NH-33, Naman Vidya School, Masipiri, Hazaribagh, P.O.&P.S.-Hazaribagh, DistrictHazaribagh, (Jharkhand).

¶7

Gopal Thakur, age- 37 years, S/o- Late Banshi Thakur, R/oUpper Pochara, P.O.- Barkakana & P.S.-Barkakana, DistrictRamgarh, (Jharkhand).

¶8

Umesh Kumar, age- 33 years, S/o- Shri Mohan Mahto, R/oParsabeda, P.O. Bharkhar & P.S.-Dumri DistrictGiridih, (Jharkhand).

¶9

Pankaj Kumar, age- 39 years, S/o-Radhe Krishan Prasad, R/oTara Tand, Ward No.09, Jhumri Tilayiya, Jhumri Tilayiya P.O.& P.S.- Jhumri Tilayiya District- Koderma, (Jharkhand).

¶10

Dev Kumar, age- 39 years, S/o- Ram Sevak Prasad, R/oAnandpuri Colony. St Colombus College, P.O. College More, Hazaribagh & P.S.-College More, District- Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand). 8. Sushil Kumar Mishra, age- 44 years, S/o-Giri Raj Nandan Mishra, R/o- C block Near Hanuman Mandir Pancshil Colony P.O.& P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand).

¶11

9 Rajiv Kumar Sharma, age- 37 years, S/o-Om Prakash Sharma, R/o-Darji Mohalla, P.O.& P.S.- Darji Mohalla, District- Giridih, (Jharkhand). ...... Petitioner(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. Dhurva P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶14

The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. Dhurva P.S. Jagannathpur, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand.

¶15

The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. Dhurva P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶16

The Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. Dhurva

¶17

1

¶18

2026:JHHC:27885

¶19

P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶20

The Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Excise Building, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda Thana, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Additional Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O.Dhurva P.S.Jagannathpur, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand.

¶21

The Joint Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. – Dhurva, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶22

The Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. – Dhurva, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶23

The Joint Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. – Dhurva, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶24

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. – Dhurva, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶25

The Under Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, H.E.C., P.O. – Dhurva, P.S. – Jagannathpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s)

¶26

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶27

¶28

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepkar Kumar Dubey, Advocate Ms.Ruhi Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Roy, GA-I --------- 02/Dated:-15.09.2026

¶29

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs:

¶31

a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately & forthwith consider the candidature of the petitioner for being absorbed cum regularized on any of the suitable Grade III post, in commensuration with their educational qualification, in the permanent establishment, i.e. on the post of Data Entry Operator

¶32

2

¶33

2026:JHHC:27885

¶34

with effect from their respective date of initial appointment/joining; appreciating the they all are rendering /discharging their services continuously on the respective place of posting from the date of their initial joining continuously till date, i.e. from more than a decade (i.e. 2007 onwards); working against a sanctioned vacant post of Computer Operator and is thus eligible in all aspects to be considered for absorption / regularization, under law.

¶35

b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) particularly a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the candidature of these petitioners for regularization/absorption of their services especially taking into consideration the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwary Vs State of Jharkhand passed in CA No. 7423-7429 of 2018; in compliance whereof the State of Jharkhand come up with the regularization rules/scheme popularly known as the Jharkhand State Regularization Rule 2015 ( झारख�डसरकारके अ�धन�थ अ�नय�मत�पसे�नयु�तएवं काय�रत कम�चा�रय�क� सेवा

¶36

�नय�मतीकरण�नयमावल�२०१५ ), to be read with its subsequent amendement notification dated 20.06.2019 done, in compliance of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, issued in the aforementioned case; wherein it has been postulated that all such daily wage workers who have been rendering their services for 10 years on or before 20.06.2019, their services shall be regularized; and also taking into consideration the fact that exercising the aforesaid regularization rules the services of several other similarly situated daily wage/contractual workers, stood regularized, whereas the regularization /absorption of these petitioners have been discriminated arbitrarily.

¶37

c. Further, for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)and/or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the candidature of these petitioners for regularization/absorption of their services in permanent establishment especially taking into consideration the recent ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in catena of Judgment including the recent guidelines postulated in the case of Jaggo vs Union of India and Ors. passed in SLP (C) 5580 of 2024, Shripal & Anr. Vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad passed in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 19832-19838 of 2017, W.P.(S) No.4822 of 2018 Baleshwar Prasad Verma Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed by Division Bench, S.L.P(C) Diary No. 19126 of 2025 The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Baleshwar Prasad Verma, Dharam Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P and Anr. Arising out of Civil Appeal No.(s) 8558 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 1352 of 2025 Radheshyam Mandal vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors, L.P.A. No. 176 of 2023 Moti Ram vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors, and many more; whereunder time and again it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as this Hon'ble Court, to regularize services of all such persons who are working on contractual basis/ daily wages and completed more than 10 years of services even irrespective of working against sanctioned and vacant post but in-spite of that the respondents have not considered the case of these petitioners till date for regularization; and further consequently prays for a further direction to make computation & payment of all benefits admissible under law, from their initial appointment/joining, till date.”

¶38

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant application may be disposed of by directing the respondent No. 05 to take a decision with regard to the prayer made in this application; in view of the fact that the petitioners are

¶39

3

¶40

2026:JHHC:27885

¶41

working on casual basis/daily wager/contractual since 2007 and as per the regularization policy on 2015 further amended in 2019; they are fully entitled for the relief as claimed in the instant application.

¶42

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though no counter affidavit has been filed however the petitioner may approach the respondent No. 05 who shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and address on the same.

¶43

1. Having regard to the above, the instant application stands disposed of by directing the respondent No. 05 to consider this writ application as fresh representation and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations and also several judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on a subject of regularization. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of ten (10) weeks. It goes without saying that if the petitioners are working as contended in their writ application, they shall not be disengaged from service and shall receive regular remuneration/honourarium what they are receiving today.

¶44

5. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶45

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶46

SEPTEMBER 15^th , 2026 Simran/Uploaded 19.09.2026

¶47

4

Ravi Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand, Thro Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand, Thro Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases