Jharkhand High Court: Terminated Employees Whose Separation Attained Finality Cannot Seek Regularization

Ranchi, Jharkhand - In a significant ruling on service jurisprudence, the High Court of Jharkhand, in a common judgment pronounced on June 12, 2025, allowed a series of Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) filed by the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited (JSFDC). The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar , set aside a Single Judge's order that had directed the regularization of services for several former daily-wage employees. The court held that employees whose services have been terminated, and whose termination orders have attained finality, cannot subsequently be considered for regularization.

Case Overview

The appeals, led by LPA No. 138 of 2024 (Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited vs Md. Yusuf & Ors.), challenged a Single Judge's common order dated December 15, 2023. The Single Judge had directed the JSFDC to consider and regularize the services of the original writ petitioners (respondents in the LPAs) from the date they were stopped from working, with all consequential benefits.

The respondents were initially engaged as daily wagers between 1982 and 1986 for a Kendu leaves project, first under the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited and later falling under the JSFDC after the bifurcation of Bihar in 2000. Their services were terminated by an order dated March 22, 2003, on the grounds that their appointments were temporary, for three months only.

Initial legal challenges to their termination by some of these employees were dismissed, with these dismissals being upheld up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, following a Supreme Court order in W.P.(C) No. 700 of 2013 which granted liberty to approach the High Court, a fresh round of litigation ensued. The High Court, in W.P.(S) No.1449 of 2014 and analogous cases, directed the JSFDC to consider their cases for regularization. The JSFDC rejected these claims on May 9, 2016, primarily stating that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts. This rejection was then challenged, leading to the Single Judge's order in favor of regularization, which was the subject of the present LPAs.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellants (JSFDC): Mr. Rupesh Singh, counsel for JSFDC, argued that: * The writ petitioners were already out of service as terminated employees when the Single Judge ordered regularization. * The orders of termination had attained finality, in some cases up to the Supreme Court. * Regularization can only be considered for employees currently on the rolls of an establishment. * The claim for regularization was rightly rejected as the appointments were not made against sanctioned posts, a prerequisite established in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . * Granting pay scales or preparing seniority lists does not automatically imply that the appointments were against sanctioned posts. * The writ court cannot issue a command for regularization under Article 226 of the Constitution.

For the Respondents (Original Petitioners): Mr. Manoj Tandon and other counsels for the respondents contended that: * The issue of termination was no longer a bar, as the Single Judge's earlier order (in W.P.(S) No.2172 of 2014) directing consideration for regularization was not challenged by JSFDC and had attained finality. * The appointments were indeed against sanctioned posts, evidenced by the grant of pay scales, revisions, preparation of seniority lists, and confirmation of services by the State. * Their cases were covered by the Regularization Rules of 2015, formulated pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 . * Some respondents argued their termination orders had not reached the Supreme Court and their initial appointments were regular, following due selection processes.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

The Division Bench meticulously analyzed the factual and legal matrix, framing three key issues: 1. Whether regularization can be ordered for an employee not in service, whose termination has been judicially upheld. 2. Whether a High Court under Article 226 can issue a directive by way of command for regularization. 3. Whether regularization can be ordered without concrete proof of appointment against a sanctioned post, based merely on presumptions.

On Regularization of Terminated Employees: The Court unequivocally held that regularization presupposes an existing employer-employee relationship. > "Regularization means that whatever irregularity has been committed in the matter of appointment, the same if regularized, such engagee will come under the regular establishment. While the termination implies separation from service, meaning thereby, the moment one appointee will be terminated, there will be no relationship of employer and employee. The moment the relationship of the employer employee will end, there cannot be question of regularization..."

The Bench cited Raj Balam Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2018) 12 SCC 50 and Ramchander v. A.D.M., (1998) 1 SCC 183 , emphasizing that once termination orders attain finality, the individuals are no longer in service and thus ineligible for regularization. The primary requirement would have been to successfully challenge the termination itself.

On Appointment Against Sanctioned Posts and Judicial Directions: The Court reiterated the principles from State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) , which allows for one-time regularization of irregularly appointed (not illegally appointed) individuals who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned vacant posts without court intervention. The Bench found that the Single Judge erred in presuming the existence of sanctioned posts based on factors like pay scale grants or seniority lists. > "Sanctioned post means the post which has been created by the State Government under the process of discharge of business... with the concurrence of the Finance Department... If these parameters [pay scale, seniority list] will be followed for the purpose of coming to the conclusion of creation of post, then the same will be said to be based upon the presumption and surmises..."

The Court noted that the initial engagement of the petitioners was as "seasonal workers for three months" for Kendu leaves collection on minimum wages, as per a notification dated 13/14.03.1987. Regarding judicial directives, the Court, referencing School Education Deptt., Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy, (2014) 4 SCC 769 , stated: > "The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again has laid down that there cannot be any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of command to regularize, rather, it is the domain of the State authorities to consider the issue of regularization..."

The Court also observed that even if the JSFDC had considered the regularization claim based on a prior court direction (which it did, and rejected), the rejection itself was reasoned (lack of sanctioned posts, termination status). The term "consideration" implies active application of mind, not necessarily a positive outcome, citing Chairman, LIC v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 .

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the Single Judge had erred in directing regularization without adequately considering the finality of the termination orders and the lack of conclusive evidence of appointment against sanctioned posts. > "This Court, after having answered the issues as above and based upon the reasons, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not considered these aspects of the matter and has interfered with the impugned order with a direction to consider the case of each individual petitioners and thereafter pass order for regularization of their services from the date they have been stopped from working, with all consequential benefits, which according to our considered view, cannot be held to be correct."

Consequently, all Letters Patent Appeals filed by the JSFDC were allowed. The impugned common order of the Single Judge dated December 15, 2023, was quashed and set aside, and the original writ petitions were dismissed. This judgment reinforces the strict criteria for regularization, particularly emphasizing that individuals whose termination from service has been judicially confirmed cannot later seek regularization.