Shailesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary

promotion and / confirmation of service of the petitioner, who has completed more than 24 years of regular service, is arbitrary and illegal and against the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not confirming the services of the petitioner since 14.09.1992 i.e. after completion of regular service after ad hoc promotion, whereas confirming the services of similarly situated persons after completing three years of service, is highly discriminatory, malafide and against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the respondents had not yet taken any decision and had not passed any order on the representations of the petitioner since long causing great hardship to the petitioner, as he has been deprived of the consequential benefits of the enhanced salary and other monetary benefits, and as such the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits along with statutory interest. It is submitted that there is no break in continuous service of more than 24 years and the petitioner had passed all the Departmental examination etc. for his promotion and hence this Writ Petition may be allowed. 3 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 )

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that initially Sri Shailesh Kumar was appointed as “Orderly” in the Grade IV cadre in the parent State of Bihar in the Crime Investigation Department (Special Cell, Vigilance Branch) Bihar, 19.1.1985 but his services as a peon was never confirmed or regularized by the department rather, he was virtue of memo no. 2610 dated 14.09.1989 promoted as a Bill clerk in the pay scale of Rs 580-860. It is submitted that Shailesh Kumar worked as peon from 19.1.1985 to 13.09.1989 for about 4 years 7 months. It is submitted that later on Shailesh Kumar was transferred to State of Jharkhand from State of Bihar after allotment of cadre and was posted in Department, Cabinet (Vigilance) Ranchi. Jharkhand. Thereafter he applied for confirmation of his service and also grant of ACP /MACP benefit and in this regard, an opinion was sought from the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department vide attached file no. Ni Vi/Stha -335/2010 by endorsing fact, since his mutual transfer 21.11.2007, he kept mum for a long period and thereafter he gave his representation in Jharkhand for his confirmation and regularization and also for grant of ACP/MACP benefit in Feb, 2012. The petitioner never tried to apply for his confirmation and regularization in the parent state Bihar since the date of his appointment as the orderly from

19.1.1985 till 21.11.2007 and this shows his malafide intention to make representation in the State of Jharkhand all of a sudden. Then, the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department gave its opinion that first of all, the Administrative Department should cancell adhoc promotion 4 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) given to Shailesh Kumar and thereafter the services the proper Shailesh Kumar for the post of peon be adopted for the procedure of confirmation vide Department Circular letter vide letter No. 11971 dated 03.11.1998 it is specified that no officer will be capable of promotion unless and until his services for the lowest post is confirmed and regularized. Even Deptt. Letter No. 7639 dated 11.06.1986 is also to be looked into because adhoc basis promotion is stopped.

6. It is submitted that the matter was referred to the learned Advocate General for his opinion through Law Department Jharkhand who gave his Opinion that since the services of the concerned employees have not yet been regularized and confirmed it would necessary first to consider such confirmation and thereafter the and other aspects of the matter is required to be looked into. Thereafter the ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner was cancelled vide Office Order dated 11.04.2014, however, the petitioner has been confirmed as Aadeshpal with effect from

19.01.1988 and order for recovery of excess payment of Rs. 41,612 was passed, however, the same has been stayed by this High Court vide order dated 20.02. 2015. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition and hence, this writ petition may be dismissed.

7. It appears that initially the petitioner was appointed as the Aadeshpal ( i.e. orderly peon) on 19.01.1985 alongiwth one Ambika Ravidas (Aadeshpal) and Amarnath ( Aadeshpal ) and who were appointed as Typist and Clerk respectively in the same pay scale of Rs. 580-860/- at Cabinet ( Vigilance ) Department in the State of Bihar . Thereafter the petitioner was given Adhoc promotion vide office order dated 14.09.1989 on the post of Bill 5 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) Clerk by the Superintendent of Police , C.I.D( Special Cell- Vigilance ) from the date of issuance of the order. 8. bifurcated from State of Bihar with effect from 15.11.2000. In the meantime, the cadre of State of Jharkhand was

9. It also reveals that some of the similarly situated persons namely Amarnath and four (04) other persons namely Krishna Prasad Mahto, Most. Pratima Sinha, Lal Bihari Singh, Nimai Pal Pahariya were regularized vide office order dated 08.02.2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary with the approval of the Vigilance Commissioner. However the case of the petitioner for confirmation was not taken up. 10. Thereafter the petitioner had filed the representation time to time and also on 08.06.2012 for the grant of First ACP and MACP with effect from 01.02.2009 on completion of 20 years of services and also claimed for promotion and has pointed out specifically that said Amarnath was appointed with him on the post of Clerk vide officer order dated 14.09.1989 and has sought permission to move before the Hon’ble High Court for redressal of his grievances .

11. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Writ Petition before this Court on 19.07.2013 for grant of promotion and for regularization and confirmation of his services with effect from

14.09.1992 on which he completed three (03) years after ad-hoc promotion at Bill Clerk .

12. The department has appeared and filed counter affidavit on by stating that this writ petition was not maintainable. It is further stated that the case of the petitioner for grant of ACP/ MACP was placed Screening committee 28.06.2012. However as the Departmental proceeding was pending against the 6 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) petitioner and hence in view of resolution of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 20.11.2008, no decision was taken with regard to the petitioner and proceeding of Screening Committee dated 28.06.2012 and resolution dated

20.11.2008 have been enclosed as Annexure -A and Annexure – B respectively and case of the petitioner was rejected on 28.06.2012 by Committee. the Members of Screening

13. Annexure –B is notification date 29.06.2013 by which punishment of “Censor” upon the petitioner after concluding the departmental proceeding and which reveals that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 11.06.2012 for under performance of his duty and for which inquiry report was submitted on 05.01.2013. Thereafter punishment of Censor was passed. But, it appears that minutes and decision of the Screening Committee was not communicated to the petitioner.

14. Surprisingly, even in Annexure –B shows that the petitioner was posted as District Cow Development Officer, Garhwa.

15. Thereafter it appears that the State has taken stand by filing in another counter affidavit on 09.01.2014 and stated that initially the petitioner was appointed as Orderly in IV B in the parent State of Bihar in C.I.D ( Special Cell Vigilance ) Bihar on 19.01.1985 but his service of peon was never confirmed or regularized by the department, rather he was promoted as Bill Clerk in the pay scale Rs. 580-860/- vide virtue of Memo No. 2610 dated 14.09.1989 (vide annexure –A). The petitioner held and work as peon from 19.01.1985 to 13.09.1989 for about four 7 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) (04) years and seven (07) months. Later on the petitioner was transferred to the State of Jharkhand from State of Bihar after allotment of cadre and he was posted in Cabinet (Vigilance), Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, when he had applied for confirmation of his service and grant of ACP/MACP, then it was also pointed out that it was mutual transfer on 21.11.2007 but the petitioner kept on mum and then he applied for confirmation of his service and regularization and also grant of ACP/MACP and the petitioner never applied his confirmation and regularization in the parent State of Bihar since the date of his appointment i.e. on 19.01.1985 till 21.11.2007. Thereafter in the above circumstances, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department has cancelled the adhoc promotion given to the petitioner and thereafter the services of the petitioner for the post of peon was adopted for the purpose of the confirmation. It was pointed out by the circular letter No. 11971 dated 03.11.1998 in which it is clarified that no officer will be capable of promotion unless and until his services from the lower post is confirmed and regularization and the photocopy of said letter dated 03.11.1998 is enclosed as another Annexure –B to counter affidavit dated 19.06.2014.

16. Thereafter the petitioner had filed rejoinder on 18.01.2014 to the said counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner has made as filed representation to consider his case for promotion on the basis of priority and his service book was send to the Cabinet ( Vigilance) Department , Jharkhand , Ranchi vide memo No. 629 dated 23.10.2008 as well memo letter dated

26.11.2009 , the petitioner also enclosed the office order dated

21.07.2010 issued by Joint Secretary Cabinet ( Vigilance ) 8 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) Department , Jharkhand , Ranchi by which he has been shown to working as Bill Clerk in Technical cell posted by Cabinet ( Vigilance ) Department , Jharkhand , Ranchi and also directed to work as Additional In-charge. The petitioner has further enclosed the Appointment letter office order issued by the CID (Special Cell Vigilance) , Patna dated 23.01.1985 by which the petitioner had been appointed as Aadeshpal alongwith five (05) others persons on 19.01.1985. 17. The State filed supplementary counter affidavit dated

23.07.2024 and it was informed that the Department has not recovered the excess payment of Rs. 41,612/- from Shri Sailesh Kumar, Peon and currently Shailesh Kumar is working in the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Ranchi as a Peon and he is being paid salary of a Peon in view of departmental office order no 2003 dated 12.11.2014.

18. Thereafter the petitioner had filed amendment petition vide I.A No. 3844 of 2014 on 28.07.2014 and which was allowed on 04.08.2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh as then His Lordship was) of this Court .Thereafter High Court had sought response of the department pursuant to order dated 04.12.2014 because in the meantime the petitioner was compelled to file I.A. No. 5941 of 2014 because certain payment were to be recovered from him and Interim order was passed on 04.12.2014 in favour of the petitioner by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Hon’ble Mr.Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh as then His Lordship was ) of this Court. By the said amendment petition dated 28.07.2014 the petitioner had prayed for quashing the part of the order passed by the 9 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) Deputy Secretary, Cabinet ( Vigilance ) Department of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Memo No.Ni.Vi/Stha -335 /2010 /721 Ranchi dated 11.04.2014 by which adhoc promotion given to the petitioner to the post of Bill Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860 vide memo no, 2610/Pat dated 14.09.1989 had been revoked with immediate effect and order for recovery of Rs. 41, 612/- was passed.

19. Thereafter the department has filed another counter affidavit on 05.02.2015 and taken the same plea as taken earlier and stated in the light of suggestion given by the learned Advocate General, the adhoc promotion to the petitioner was cancelled by office order No. 721 dated 11.04.2014 and his service as orderly was confirmed from 19.01.1988 which was enclosed as Annexure-A . It is further stated that the petitioner has been directed to deposit excess payment made to him on account of his salary vide office order no. 2004 dated 12.11.2014.

20. The petitioner had filed his rejoinder on 10.02.2015 to the said counter affidavit on 05.02.2015 and pointed out that he was paid salary to Rs. 24,154 /- from August, 2014 to December, 2014 whereas same should have to pay for the post of Bill Clerk as the rate of Rs. 29,630/- per month.

21. It further transpires that vide order dated 20.02.2015 the another Co-ordinate Bench ( Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad) had allowed another I.A. No. 5941 of 2014 by which the petitioner had prayed for quashing the letter dated

12.11.2014 issued by the Joint Secretary , Cabinet (Vigilance) Department , Government of Jharkhand , Ranchi whereby the adhoc promotion granted the petitioner to the post of Bill Clerk 10 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) has been revoked and a sum of Rs. 41, 612/- towards excess payment had been ordered to be recovered and the said amendment was allowed on 20.02.2015 by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad) and interim order dated 04.12.2014 was continued.

22. Thereafter the respondent filed supplementary affidavit on 19.03.2015 to the query made by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad ) of this Court on

06.02.2015 as to how the letter No. 11971 dated ) 3.11.1998 is applicable in the case of the petitioner and he is as Class III, /Class IV Employee and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also asked as to why the petitioner had suffered as the petitioner was appointed on 19.01.1995 and till 2014 the service of the petitioner was not regularized as Class IV Employee .

23. Thereafter, this Writ Petition was admitted by the Co- ordinate Bench ( Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh as then Lordship was ) on 15 .05.2015 and interim order was continued and thereafter matter was posted before the another Co-ordinate Bench ( Justice Dr. S. N. Pathak as then Lordship was) on 16.05.2024 when the petitioner had filed I.A. No. 436 of 2023 for earlier hearing of this case. 24. 2023 that Para 4, 5, and 6 as follows: It has been pointed by the petitioner I.A. No. 436 of “Para 4:- That the petitioner humbly states and submits that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner in the year 2019 met with a bike accident in which he suffered head injury and thereafter has been ill regularly.” 11 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) “Para 5:- That it is further stated and submitted that after the said accident the petitioner is not able to walk or speak properly and had gone for treatment in NIMHANS, Bangalore in the year 2022 where it was opined that the symptoms of the petitioner is of Atypical Parkinsonism and thereafter the petitioner is under treatment for the same under Dr. Ujjawal Roy. Photocopy prescriptions the medical NIMHANS, of Bangalore as well as Roy Neuro Care, Ranchi is annexed herewith and marked as the Annexure- 1.A I series to Application.. Interlocutory” “Para 6:-That it is further evident to mention herein that the health of the petitioner is deteriorating day by day and is not able to speak or write or even walk properly.”

25. Thus from above it is evident that the petitioner has been victimized by the Department of Cabinet (Vigilance) without having any fault of his part and without any basis. 26. This Court is surprised to see as to how the Department of Cabinet (Vigilance) Jharkhand, Ranchi had cancelled the adhoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Bill Clerk on 11.04.2014 when the matter was sub - judice before this Court since year 2013 on 19.07.2013 and even they sought to recover amount of Rs. 41,612 /- which is in contravention of law laid down of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

27. It is further evident that when the matter was sub- justice before this Court on the point of confirmation and regularization of the service of the petitioner and for grant of 12 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) ACP/ MACP, the Respondent had cancelled promotion without issue any show cause notice to the petitioner.

28. It is circular of the State Government issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar issued as for back on 02.06.1973 that the services of the employee will be deemed to be confirmed on completion of three (03) years or more then three (03) of services and it was made responsibility of the department as well as Department Secretaries to implement this procedure to process if an employees has completed three (03) years or more then three (03) years of services.

29. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that circular no. 11971 dated 03.11.1998 is applicable to the Gazetted Officers of Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch), and the same is not applicable to the III rd & IV th Grade employees.

30. It is evident that even promotion of the petitioner was cancelled without issuance any show cause notice to him for the post of Bill Clerk .

31. It is well settled that an employee has to be heard before any above order is passed against him and if adverse order was passed against him without hearing it will violative of principles of natural justice .

32. In view of the judgment reported in Nyadar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (1988) 4 SCC 170, it is well settled once a person is promoted to a particular post then he cannot be reverted without notice. 33. It is evident that cancellation of promotion of the applicant, that too after long period of about 13 years without issuing any show cause notice and providing opportunity of being heard, is arbitrary, illegal and non-est in the eye of law. 13 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 )

34. It is held in the case of Anand Kumar Jha & Anr. Versus The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2003 SCC Online Pat 234 at Para- 6, 7 and 8 as follow:- “Para 6:- It is not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted to the higher post i.e. Assistant Research Officer with effect from 31.10.1979 and 6.9.1983, respectively, and they continued on their promotional posts uninterruptedly and they availed all the facilities of the promotional posts. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners continued on their promotional posts for about 20 years.” “Para7:- It appears that similar question had fallen for consideration before this Court in the case of Guru Sahay Lal v. State of Bihar bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1662 of 1997 (R) and this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid writ application vide order as disposed of contained in Annexure-19 holding that the order of reversion was wholly without jurisdiction in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narender Chadha v. Union of India ((1986) 2 SCC 157 : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 638). The ratio laid down in the case of Guru Sahay Lal (supra), in my opinion, applies with all force in this writ application as the facts of this case are almost identical. The petitioners were promoted and they continued on their promotional post for about 20 years and, thus, they acquired substantive right on the posts and they derived all the benefits of promotion. Merely because they were promoted by the Chief Engineer and not by the Director, the order of promotion could not have been cancelled as the authorities acquiesced in the infirmity, if any, committed by the Department by allowing the petitioners to continue on the promotional posts for about 20 years.” “Para 8:-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the ratio laid down in the cases of Narender Chadha (supra) and Guru Sahay Lal (supra), the orders impugned are not sustainable in law.”

35. It is well settled from the catena of decision and also several judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court also that no recovery can be made from any group of class –III and class-IV employees, if there is no fault on his /her fault. 14 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 )

36. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 at Para-18 as follows :- “Para 18:- It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” (Emphasis supplied)

37. It has been held in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1909, at Para-20,23,24,25 and 26 as follows:- 15 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) “Para-20:- Without prejudice to the above findings, we are of the view that no departmental action could have been initiated by the State against the appellant after eight years following his superannuation because the employer employee relationship had come to an end after the appellant's superannuation. The order directing reduction in pay scale and recovery from the appellant was manifestly not preceded by any show cause notice and was thus, passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the order dated 20th July, 2009 passed in the Writ Petition No. 6714 of 2009 filed by the appellant, he submitted a representation to the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, which vide order dated 8th October, 2009 was rejected, preceded by a personal hearing. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the Secretary took a view that as per paragraph 11 (supra) of the Government Resolution, the first/second time bound promotion of the appellant had come to an end automatically w.e.f. on 1st January, 1996 and thus, the appellant was required to be redesignated to the post of Marketing Officer and would be entitled to the revised pay of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 1st January, 1996 as recommended by the Fitment Committee. Thus, even in this order, the promotion conferred to the appellant to the post of ADSO on 10th March, 1991 is not doubted. Para-23:- In the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)3, this Court held as under : - “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: 16 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

38. Apart from this, it is further evident that the judgment in the case of State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this Case because the petitioner is working in Department since 1985 and he has completed more then 20 years of services on the date of passing of judgment State of Karnatka Versus Uma Devi and he has completed more then twenty (20) years of services .Thus the judgment of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case .

39. It is further evident that the petitioner has worked for more than 24 years of service as Bill Clerk and when the impugned order dated 11.04.2014 was passed by the Deputy Secretary under the instruction of Vigilance Commissioner and the same is illegal has been passed without issuance any show cause notice to the petitioner and that to the matter was sub-judice before this Court.

40. The Department has itself admitted and confirmed the petitioner of class –IV with effect from 19.01.1988.

41. It is evident that the petitioner has been given promotion on adhoc basis on the post of Bill Clerk on 14.09.1989 and he was working an uninterruptedly and continued upto 17 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 )

11.04.2014, but vide order dated 11.04.2014 adhoc promotion of the petitioner was cancelled without any basis.

42. It further reveals from Annexure- IV representation filed by the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department and thus Vigilance Department itself not only regularized the petitioner on the post of Bill Clerk rather he was give Higher Post of Upper Division Clerk on 20.06.2012.

43. It is well settled from the judgment reported in the (2018) 8 SCC 238 (Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand that an employee is entitled to confirmation if he has completed for more then ten (10) years of services and above.

44. It is held in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 771 para 7 to 11 as follows:- “ Para 7: The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of 18 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their (3) [State of is precisely what Umadevi head. This Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] sought to avoid.” “Para8 -: If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely irregularly appointed employees would be continuing perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.” “Para 9:_ The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance.” “Para 10-: Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 19 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) “ Para11:-The impugned judgment and order [Anil Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2904] passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our conclusions. The State should take a decision within four months from today on regularisation of the status of the appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.”

45. It is held in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P., reported in the case of (2018) 13 SCC 432 at para 7 to 10 as follows: “ Para 7:-When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored and conveniently overlooked by various State Governments/authorities. We regretfully Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] observation that Umadevi (3) [State has not been implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not 20 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) regularising the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Articles 14, 16 read with Article 34(1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of terminating the services are hereby quashed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending application, stands disposed of.

46. It has been held in the case of Neelima Srivastava v. State of U.P., reported (2021) 17 SCC 693 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 610 at para-23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 38 as follows:- in State of “Para 23:- Applying Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) laid down 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] the appointment of the appellant can only be construed as irregular and not illegal. The finding recorded [State of U.P. v. Neelima Srivastava, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6008] by the Division Bench of the High Court in respect of nature of the appointment of the appellant being illegal is thus not liable to be sustained. Her rejection of the claim for regularisation on the ground of her appointment being illegal by the impugned order is 22 ( 2025:JHHC:14735 ) patently erroneous. The other condition of having worked for 10 years or more also stands fully satisfied as the appellant at the time of consideration of her regularisation had completed almost 23 years of service.” “Para 24:- The only question which now requires consideration is whether her continuation on the post on the strength of the interim order passed by the High Court would disentitle her from regularisation in view of the dictum in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .” “Para 30:-In an identical situation, this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4443 of 2021 with Civil Appeals Nos. 4444 & 4445 of 2021 decided on 26-7-2021 (Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela [Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela, (2021) 17 SCC 750] ) has rejected the argument advanced by the appellant in the said case that the judgment of this Court dated in Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu 18-1-2001 Bechar [Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, (2001) 3 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 613] does not survive after the in Umadevi Court