Contractual Employees Cannot Face Adverse Consequences for Approaching Court: Jharkhand High Court Orders Regularization

In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional right to access courts, the Jharkhand High Court has directed the State to reinstate and regularize nine contractual employees who were disengaged shortly after they sought judicial remedy for their regularization claims. Justice Deepak Roshan, presiding over a single-judge bench, quashed the State’s rejection orders and held that retaliatory action against litigants strikes at the very root of the rule of law.

A Decade of Service, Then Abrupt Disengagement

The petitioners – Dharo Oraon, Arun Kumar Sahu, Gautam Prasad Singh, Aashish Ranjan, Pradip Bada, Vishnu Deo Shah, Arbind Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Razak, and Santosh Kumar Ram – were appointed on contractual basis as Clerks, Typists, Coordinators, Drivers, and Pump Operators in the Engineering Cell of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare. Their engagements, which began between 2004 and 2008, were renewed repeatedly without break. In April 2016, the Engineering Cell was merged with the newly formed Building Construction Department.

The employees first approached the High Court in 2016 (W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2016), which directed consideration of their regularization. The State’s appeal was dismissed with costs. When the authorities refused to comply, the petitioners filed a contempt petition, leading to a reasoned rejection order. That order was quashed in 2024 (W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2020) with a direction to reconsider in light of Supreme Court precedents. However, in August 2024, the Building Construction Department again rejected the claims, stating that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts, had no appointment letters, and the recruitment procedure was not followed. Simultaneously, without any formal order or show-cause notice, the petitioners were prevented from working.

State’s Own Records Contradict Its Defence

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mr. Amritansh Vats argued that the appointments had been approved by the Principal Secretary, as evident from departmental file notings (Annexure-3 Series). A letter dated 28 April 2016 from the Chief Engineer confirmed that the petitioners were working against sanctioned posts (Annexure-4 Series). The counsel contended that the disengagement immediately after the 2016 court order was mala fide and arbitrary.

The State, represented by Mr. Abhinay Kumar, countered that the petitioners did not meet the criteria under the Jharkhand Regularization Rules, 2019, and that their appointments were irregular as they lacked proper selection through advertisement and reservation roster compliance.

High Court: Disengagement for Approaching Court Is Illegal

Justice Roshan found that the State’s objections were belied by its own records. The court noted that the petitioners had worked continuously for over ten years performing perennial duties integral to the department’s functioning. Drawing on a series of Supreme Court judgments, including Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025), and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand (2026), the court observed that the mere contractual label cannot deny regularization when duties are essential and long-standing.

The judgment categorically held:

“No Citizen can be visited with adverse consequences merely for having approached a Court of Law for protection of his/her Constitutional rights. The rights to move a Court is itself a Constitutional right, and any action taken by way of reprisal against a citizen for having invoked such right strikes at the very root of rule of law.”

The court further stated that the disengagement without a formal order or show-cause, following the earlier litigation, was “arbitrary and mala-fide.” It emphasized that even if the appointments were irregular (due to lack of advertisement), they were not illegal, as the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications and worked against sanctioned posts. The distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, the court noted, allows for regularization under the Umadevi framework.

Quashing and Directions

The High Court quashed the impugned orders dated 14 August 2024 and directed the respondent No. 2 (Building Construction Department) to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits. A formal order of regularization must be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court also allowed an amendment petition (I.A. No. 10895/2026) to include a prayer for reinstatement.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot penalize employees for seeking legal remedies. The ruling is expected to impact similar cases where contractual employees are disengaged after approaching courts, reinforcing that access to justice is a fundamental right that cannot be met with retaliation.