IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P(S) No. 92 of 2017

------

1. Birbal Ram

2. Faghuni Ram

3. Ajay Chaudhary

4. Jumai Ansari @ Sheikh

…. …. Petitioner(s).

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. Principal Secretary, Dept. of Water Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal

House, Doranda

3. Joint Secretary to the Dept. of Water Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal

House, Doranda

4. Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Gharwa

5. Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Garhwa

….

….

Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Mr. Mithilesh Singh GA-IV

14/13.02.2023

Heard the parties.

2.

This application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by four

petitioners claiming for regularization of their services, since as per them they are

working from the year 1984-1992.

3.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were appointed on Daily

wage basis in different posts in Class-IV Category like Gate Khalasi, Pump

Operator, Mali (Gardener) in the year 1984 by the Water Ways Division, Garhwa .

It is their case that they are working diligently but their services have not been

regularized. The petitioners thus claims regularization. He lastly submits that they

worked for 240 days continuously, which strengthen their case for regularization.

4.

Counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly petitioners were working

on daily wages but they have been disengaged in the year 1992. He submits that they

have not served continuously for 240 days on daily wages and as they were

appointed on daily wages without their being any advertisement, thus their services

cannot be regularized.

5.

The petitioners admittedly were appointed on daily wages in different Class-

IV posts. In Paragraph no.4 of the writ application it has been mentioned that they

were appointed under Water Ways Division, Garhwa and they continued their

services till September, 1992 and petitioner no.4 continued his service till

September, 1989. This submission on part of the petitioners suggests that petitioner

no.4 worked till 1989 and the others petitioners till 1992.

-2-

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Oshiar Prasad V. Sudamdih Coal

Washery reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71, at paragraph no. 25 has held as under.

“25. It is a settled principle of law that absorption and

regularization in service can be claimed or/and granted only

when the contract of employment subsists and is in force inter

se employee and the employer. Once It comes to an end either

by efflux of time or as per the terms of the contract of

employment or by its termination by the employer, then in such

event, the relationship of employee and employer comes to an

end and no longer subsists except for the limited purpose to

examine the legality and correctness of its termination.”

7.

Further in paragraph No. 43 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in

(2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“43. ………………If it is a contractual appointment, the

appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual

basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued.

Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made

permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. It has also

to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a

casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of

his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of

such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the

relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recr