Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:31767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.1761 of 2022
-----
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Mishra, son of late Mahendra Mishra,
resident of village Hardeochak, PO and PS Ishipur (Pirpainti), District
Bhagalpur, presently posted at PHED department in the post of
Keyman cum Meharma Block, PO and PS Meherma, District Godda
... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand represented through the Secretary, Public
Health and Engineering Department (PHED) now Drinking Water and
Sanitation Department, Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda,
District Rancho
2.Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department
(PHED), now Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Nepal
House, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi
3.Superintending Engineer, Public Health and Engineering
Department (PHED), now Drinking Water and Sanitation Department,
PO and PS Godda, District Godda
4.Executive Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department
(PHED) now Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, PO and PS
Godda, District Godda ... Respondent(s).
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III .........
08 /14.10.2025: Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the part of the order of regularisation contained in Memo No. 2953 dated 17.07.2009 whereby though the services of the petitioner has been regularised yet he has been regularised from the date of issuance of the aforesaid order.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that without any basis or rationale the services of the petitioner has been regularised with effect from the date of the issuance of the letter i.e. 17.07.2009 rather it should have been 1 2025:JHHC:31767 atleast from 13.03.1990 since the date the petitioner was working. He submits that retrenchment of the petitioner during short period of time will not have any effect on regularisation as his said termination was set-aside by this Court and he was directed to be reinstated. The respondents had accepted the said order and reinstated the petitioner. Thus there cannot be any gap in service. He submits that admittedly the petitioner's land was acquired and he was given employment in lieu of such acquisition of land. No doubt is casted upon his appointment and he has worked from 1990 and has attained the age of superannuation and has been superannuated. His service needs to be regularised from March 1990.
4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III submitted that the services of the petitioner was terminated. Thus there is break in service. He submits that his case for regularisation was considered in July 2009 and finally an order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 17.07.2009 and it was decided to regularise the service of the petitioner from the aforesaid date. He submits that no fault can be found in the said order.
5. Admittedly the land of the petitioner's father was acquired by the State. The said land was acquired sometime in the year 1984 to set up a scheme for supply of water to the citizens. It was decided to give employment to the petitioner pursuant to the said acquisition.
6. The petitioner was appointed as Keyman-cum-Choukidar on PHED Department on temporary basis. He continuously served till 1986. Thereafter he was terminated from service on 10.11.2000 which led to filing of WP(S) No. 3448 of 2001.
7. Be it noted that prior to that the petitioner has filed CWJC No. 11357 of 1998 in Patna High Court for regularisation of his service as he continued in service on temporary basis, though he should have been given permanent employment in lieu of acquisition of the land. Since the petitioner was dismissed from service in the year, 2000 the aforesaid writ petition for regularisation was 2 2025:JHHC:31767 withdrawn.
8. In the counter affidavit filed in WP(S) No. 3448 of 2001 the respondent-State accepted that the land belonged to the petitioner was acquired in 1984 and in lieu of such acquisition he was given employment in 1984. He also admitted that in 1986 the petitioner was stopped from work but in 1990 he was again appointed on the post of Keyman-cum-Choukidar and worked continuously till 2000 when he was again dismissed leading to the aforesaid writ petition. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition held that there was no justification for the respondent-State to terminate the service of the petitioner. This Court ultimately allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of service of the petitioner. Further the respondents were directed to immediately reinstate the service of the petitioner and further take final decision of regularisation of service of the petitioner within the period of 30 days.
9. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner was reinstated and his regularisation was considered and only vide order dated 17.07.2009 an order was passed to regularise him, but from the date of the order.
10. In view of the fact of this case admittedly on the first occasion the petitioner was allowed to work from March 1990 (prior to termination in the year, 2000), the respondent-State could not have regularised the service of the petitioner from 2009. Further the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 3448 of 2001 has held that termination of the petitioner in the year 2000 was absolutely bad and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. The respondent accepted the order and reinstated the petitioner. This fact also fortifies the claim of the petitioner that he should have been regularised from March 1990 and not from July 2009.
11. Further from the order of regularisation, I find no reason as to why the petitioner has been regularised from 17.7.2009 admittedly when the petitioner had worked continuously from March 1990 3 2025:JHHC:31767 (except the period when he remained dismissed from service till his reinstatement), the respondents could not have passed the impugned order.
12. Considering the long length of service of the petitioner which he has performed admittedly i.e. March 1990 till his date of superannuation, I direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner from March 1990 and pay all his post retiral dues i.e. provident fund, gratuity, pension etc. considering his length of service from 13.03.1990.
13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 14.10.2025 Tanuj/CP-2 4