The High Court
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:34750] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 490 of 2023 ----- 1. Md. Salim, aged about 59 years, son of Late Md. Muslim, residing at Makdumpur, Simandi, Post Makdumpur, Police Station Balidih, District Bokaro. 2. Ishwar Chandra Jaiswal, aged about 47 years, son of Late Prabhu Nath Prasad, residing at Rajkiya Polytechnic, Khutri, Mangladih, Bandhdih, Post Jaina More, Police Station Jaina More, District Bokaro. 3. Vijay Lal Keshri, aged about 58 years, son of Late Govind Saw Keshri, residing at Chas Road, Near B.S.N.L. Tower, Post Jaina More, Police Station Jaridih, District Bokaro. 4. Anand Kumar Sinha @ Ajay Kumar Sinha, aged about 45 years, son of Late Dineshwar Prasad Sinha, residing at Rajkiya Polytechnic, Khutri, Mangladih, Bandhdih, Post Jaina More, Police Station Jaina More, District Bokaro.
Legal Reasoning
5. Ziaul Haque aged about 48 years, son of Sri Anisul Haque, residing at Makdumpur, Simandi, Post Makdumpur, Police Station Balidih, District Bokaro. Versus 1. Shri Rahul Purwar, son of not known to the petitioners, presently posted … … Petitioners as the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Yojna Bhawan, Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. Smt. Alka Tiwari, d/o not known, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, officiating from 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda. 3. The State of Jharkhand. Cont. Case (Civil) No. 960 of 2023 With … … Opp. Parties ----- 1 [2025:JHHC:34750] 1. Indu Kumar Choudhary, aged about 59 years, son of Sri Ganesh Choudhary. 2. Ramesh Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Late Vijindra Prasad Singh. 3. Naresh Kumar Jha, aged about 55 years, son of Late Maha Nand Jha. 4. Krishna Mohan Ram, aged about 55 years, son of Late Raghunath Ram. 5. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Late Kishori Singh. 6. Jitendra Prasad, aged about 50 years, son of Sri Ram Anugrah Prasad. 7. Kanhai Prasad, aged about 49 years, son of Late Dukhi Sao. All are working in Government Women’s Polytechnic, Tharpakhna, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 1. The State of Jharkhand. Versus … … Petitioners 2. The Chief Secretary, Sri Sukhdeo Singh, son of not known to the petitioners, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi. 3. Sri Rahul Purwar, son of not known to the petitioners, Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Technical Education, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. Smt. Garima Singh, wife of not known to the petitioner, Director, Department of Technical Education, Department of Higher Technical Education and Skill Development, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 5. Sri Janardan Sahay, son of not known to the petitioners, Principal Incharge, Government Women Polytechnic, Tharpakhna, P.O.: GPO Ranchi, P.S.:Kotwali, District-Ranchi. … … Opp. Parties ------- 2 [2025:JHHC:34750] CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj, Advocate [Cont. Case (C) No. 490 of 2023] Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate [Cont. Case (C) No. 960 of 2023] For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II ------ Order No. 33/Dated 19th November, 2025 1. A fresh show cause has been filed in pursuance of the order dated 24.09.2025. 2. The Government has come out with the resolution as contained in Memo No. 977 dated 14.11.2025 regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of issuance of the said resolution, i.e., 14.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases have submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 14.11.2025, that the petitioners have been regularized leaving the cases of 03 petitioners, namely, Indu Kumar Choudhary [petitioner in Cont. Case (C) no.960 of 2023]; Md. Salim and; Vijay Lal Keshri [petitioners in Cont. Case (C) no.490 of 2023]. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the effect of the regularization since has been given w.e.f. 14.11.2025, the day when all the 03 petitioners, namely, Indu Kumar Choudhary [petitioner in Cont. Case (C) no.960 of 2023]; Md. Salim and; Vijay Lal Keshri [petitioners in Cont. Case (C) no.490 of 2023] have already been separated from service on attaining the age of superannuation and as such, they have not been regularized in service being not in service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the resolution dated 14.11.2025 is per se illegal since the order of regularization has been made w.e.f. 14.11.2025 even though the petitioners were working since last more than 25 years. 6. It has further been submitted that the 03 petitioners, namely, Indu Kumar Choudhary; Md. Salim and; Vijay Lal Keshri have not been considered 3 [2025:JHHC:34750] for regularization on account of the fact that they have been separated from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. It has been contended that the date of superannuation was fixed and if any delay has been caused as would appear from different show causes wherein on one pretext or the other, objection has been raised and finally the approval has been granted by the Cabinet based upon that the resolution dated 14.11.2025 has been issued, which itself suggest and clarify that the laches are at the end of the State for which these 03 petitioners cannot be made to suffer. 8. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that since this Court is in seisin of the matter in a proceeding under Contempt of Courts Act wherein it will not be proper, due to want of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, to pass fresh direction upon the State either giving a declaration with respect to the reason for regularization w.e.f. 14.11.2025 as per the resolution dated 14.11.2025 or denying the benefit of regularization to 03 petitioners, namely, Indu Kumar Choudhary; Md. Salim and; Vijay Lal Keshri by passing a fresh direction by assuming the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. This Court is of the view that the petitioners are to agitate the same by filing fresh writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the said liberty may be given to challenge the part of the resolution dated 14.11.2025 by shifting the date of regularization by regularizing the services from the date when they have inducted in services and further liberty to the 03 petitioners, namely, Indu Kumar Choudhary; Md. Salim and; Vijay Lal Keshri to question the action of the State Government in denying the benefit of regularization due to laches committed on the part of the State. 11. There is no objection by the learned counsel for the opposite party-State. 12. Considering the aforesaid, both the instant contempt cases are being
Decision
disposed of. However, with the liberty to the petitioners to challenge the resolution dated 14.11.2025 as also to the other 03 petitioners, namely, 4 [2025:JHHC:34750] Indu Kumar Choudhary [petitioner in Cont. Case (C) no.960 of 2023]; Md. Salim and; Vijay Lal Keshri [petitioners in Cont. Case (C) no.490 of 2023] to agitate the issue by filing fresh writ petition. 13. Accordingly, both the instant contempt cases are hereby disposed of. 14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 15. The personal appearance of the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Govt. of Jharkhand is dispensed with. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 19th November, 2025 Saurabh/ Uploaded on: 21.11.2025 5