Jharkhand High Court
Vivek Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:9456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1336 of 2023
------
Vivek Kumar Das, son of Laxman Das, resident of Dabgar Mohalla,
Tandwa, P.O. Garhwa, P.S. Garhwa, District Garhwa, State
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government
of Jharkhand, FFP Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
3. The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Department of Rural Development,
Government of Jharkhand, FFP Building, First Floor, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate Campus, Garhwa, P.O., P.S.
& District Garhwa, State Jharkhand.
5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District
Garhwa, State Jharkhand.
6. Block Development Office, Meral, BDO Office, Meral, P.O. & P.S.
Meral, District Garhwa, State Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to GA-IV Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
------
09/ 01.04.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. At the outset, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that payment of salary of the petitioner since November, 2021, as prayed vide para-1(ii), has already been made, thus the petitioner now confines his prayer to only prayer No.1(i), which reads as hereunder:-
"1. (i)to reinstate the petitioner who have been orally removed by the office of Deputy 1 2026:JHHC:9456 Commissioner, Garhwa whereas the petitioner namely Vivek Kumar Das was temporarily appointed as peon in the cadre of IVth grade employee under Mahatma Gandhi National Rule Employees Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) vide order memo no.739 dated 3.09.2013 issued by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Garhwa on the ground of mercy keeping in mind the death of petitioner's brother following which condition of his family was going on economically pitiable because petitioner's brother was the sole bread earner of their family, and after serving continuous service more than 9 years suddenly petitioner was orally removed from his duty on 22.08.2022 by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa and making another temporary arrangement of employee from the outsource company."
3. The petitioner's brother died in a road accident on 12.05.2013 and was the only earning member of the family. After his death, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as a peon (Class IV employee) and later was deputed to the District Confidential Branch, Garhwa.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that no notice was given to the petitioner before his removal from the service which is illegal and arbitrary. He also submits that the petitioner is being replaced by another temporary/outsourced employee, which is not allowed as per settled law that temporary employee should not be replaced by another temporary employee.
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on compassionate 2 2026:JHHC:9456 grounds and not against any sanctioned post. He further submits that Authorities were directed not to take work from persons appointed on non-sanctioned posts under MGNREGA. He also submits that later, in July 2022, two MTS posts were created to be filled through Outsourcing Agency and an order was issued to stop taking services from Daily Wage Workers. As a result, the petitioner's services were discontinued along with other similarly placed workers. He further submits that petitioner's appointment was temporary and not on a sanctioned post.
6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that this case of the petitioner cannot be said to be an appointment, rather it is a mere engagement as the petitioner was appointed temporarily on compassionate grounds after the death of his brother and not against any sanctioned post, that too, without any formal recruitment process, making the engagement as ad hoc and need-based. Later on, the Authorities issued directions to stop engaging persons on non-sanctioned posts. The action of the Authorities was uniform and the same did not target the petitioner alone. It is a settled principle that an employee appointed on a non- sanctioned post does not acquire any legal right to continue in service.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, at para- 29, has held as hereunder:-
"29. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra [(2005) 5 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 628 : AIR 1994 SC 1638] a three-Judge 3 2026:JHHC:9456 Bench of this Court held that ad hoc appointees/temporary employees engaged on ad hoc basis and paid on piece-rate basis for certain clerical work and discontinued on completion of their task, were not entitled to reinstatement or regularisation of their services even if their working period ranged from one to two years. This decision indicates that if the engagement was made in a particular work or in connection with particular project, on completion of that work or of that project, those who were temporarily engaged or employed in that work or project could not claim any right to continue in service and the High Court cannot direct that they be continued or absorbed elsewhere."
8. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has got no right of reinstatement or regularisation even if he has worked for a considerable period. The petitioner's claim for unpaid salary since November 2021 has already been addressed. Thus, the petitioner being appointed on a non-sanctioned post does not acquire any legal right to continue in service or reinstatement.
9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 01st April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 07.04.2026 4