Jharkhand High Court
Md. Nasiruddin Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:2663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.457 of 2026
------
Md. Nasiruddin Khan, son of Md. Mokhtar Khan, resident of Lok Bihar
Colony, Hazaribagh Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Co-ordinate Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and
Consumers Affairs, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Nalini Jha, Advocate Mrs. Kavita Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate
------
02/ 02.02.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is praying to consider the past services rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of calculation of his post retiral benefits. He also claims penal interest along with other consequential benefits.
3. After hearing the parties and from the records, I find that the petitioner was working on daily wage basis on the post of Driver in Simdega, Waterways Sub-Division, Simdega, w.e.f. 08.11.1995. 3.1. The petitioner along with others had approached this 1 2026:JHHC:2663 Court in the year 2010 praying for regularization by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6410 of 2010 (Sushil Lakra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2011, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization. 3.2. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by an Order as contained in Memo No.1561, Ranchi, dated 01.11.2011.
3.3. In the year 2023, the respondents issued Notification as contained in Memo No.807/ Ranchi, dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was appointed provisionally.
3.4. The petitioner tendered his joining vide letter dated 13.03.2023 (Annexure-5/A to the writ petition). 3.5. Thereafter, vide Office Order as contained in Memo No.1189 dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the service of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 13.03.2025.
4. The grievance of this petitioner is that he will superannuate in the year 2029, and since he was appointed provisionally in the year 2023 and his service was confirmed in the year 2025, he will not get his pensionary and other benefits as it will be treated that he has not completed ten years of service.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272, has held that the past service as a contractual employee is to be only taken into account, where the employees 2 2026:JHHC:2663 working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. Para-9 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules: "Save as otherwise provided in these rules". If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account."
5.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2004, held that the State cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own wrong. It has further been held that to take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter contend that an employee shall not be eligible for pension, is unreasonable. Para-1 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad- hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the 3 2026:JHHC:2663 respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand."
6. After hearing the parties and going through the records of this case, I find that admittedly the petitioner was working since 1995 on daily wage basis, consequence whereof he was appointed provisionally in the year 2023 and was confirmed in service in the year 2025. Thus, the period which the petitioner had worked under the respondents prior to his regularization, should be considered for the purpose of his retiral benefits.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 02nd February, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 05.02.2026 4