Sangeeta Toppo vs State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Roshan, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  instant  writ  application  has been  preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the Letter No. 238 dated  30.01.2019,  issued  under  the signature of  the  Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-4), whereby the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s claim for regularization of service.

The petitioner has further prayed for a consequential direction upon the respondents to reconsider and decide her claim for regularization in a fair, lawful, and non- arbitrary manner, in accordance with constitutional principles and settled law.

The case of the petitioner is that she has been continuously  working  as  a  Computer  Operator  in  the  office of  the  respondent-Transport  Department  since  31.03.2004, initially on daily wage basis. Her engagement and continuance  are  duly  evidenced  by  official  communications including Letter No. 1802 dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure-1).

From the very inception of her engagement, the petitioner has discharged her duties continuously, efficiently, and without any interruption, as reflected from Letter dated 20.08.2004 (Annexure-2). There has never been  any  allegation  regarding  her  conduct,  competence,  or performance.

Recognizing the petitioner’s long and satisfactory service, the concerned District Transport Officers repeatedly recommended her case for regularization, vide Letter Nos. 1513 dated 15.05.2004, 1544 dated 19.05.2004,  and  1285  dated  06.05.2005,  which  were later reiterated in Letter No. 1802 dated 07.08.2007. Despite such consistent recommendations, no decision was taken by the higher authorities.

The  case  of  the  respondents  is  that  the  petitioner  was engaged  through  an  outsourcing  agency,  and  that  the  post of Computer Operator is allegedly not a sanctioned post.

It is contended that although the petitioner was engaged on the recommendation of the District Transport Officer with effect from 31.03.2004, no formal sanction was obtained from the competent authority, and therefore her engagement  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  regularization under the Jharkhand Service Regularization Rules, 2015.

It has been further argued that upon consideration by the departmental Committee, the petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that it does not fall within the definition of “employee” under Rule 2 of the said Rules, leading to issuance of the impugned letter.

Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it is evident that vide Letter No. 340 dated 15.03.2007, the Transport Department sanctioned 11 posts of Computer Operators on contractual basis for newly created districts. However, these sanctioned posts were never filled up, and the work continues to be performed through outsourced arrangements. In contrast, in older districts, the respondents continued to extract identical work from persons like the petitioner on daily wage/contractual arrangements for decades.

Aggrieved by the prolonged inaction, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5323 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated 17.12.2018, directing the respondents to examine the petitioner’s status and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period (Annexure-3).

In purported compliance of the said order, the respondents issued Letter No. 238 dated 30.01.2019, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for regularization on technical  grounds.  The  said  letter  is  the  impugned order  in the present writ petition.

It is further evident from records that the respondents have categorically admitted that the petitioner has been working continuously since 31.03.2004. Her engagement now spans over two decades, which by itself establishes that the work performed by her is perennial, regular, and essential to the functioning of the Transport Department.

Such  prolonged  engagement  cannot,  by  any  stretch  of reasoning, be termed temporary, casual, or intermittent. The nature of duties discharged by the petitioner clearly demonstrates an existing and continuing functional requirement of the department.

The impugned Letter No. 238 dated 30.01.2019 suffers from patent self-contradiction.  While  acknowledging that the petitioner has been continuously working since 2004,  the  respondents  deny  regularization  by branding  her as an outsourced worker. This internally inconsistent reasoning renders the decision arbitrary, non-reasoned, and legally unsustainable.

Such an approach reflects non-application of mind and defeats the very purpose of the earlier judicial direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The  respondents’ reliance  on  outsourcing  as  a  ground for denial is wholly misconceived. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 has categorically held that outsourcing cannot be used as a device to perpetuate insecure and exploitative employment where the work is permanent and regular in nature.

In the present case, the petitioner has been working under  the  direct  control,  supervision,  and  discipline  of  the Transport Department, performing core departmental functions indispensable to its day-to-day operations. The mere  nomenclature  of  “outsourcing”  cannot  dilute  the  true nature of her engagement.

The plea that the post of Computer Operator is not sanctioned is equally untenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the State cannot take advantage of its own failure to create or sanction posts, despite longstanding and admitted functional necessity. Where the State has extracted work for years together, denial of regularization on the ground of non-sanction amounts to institutional arbitrariness and unfair labour practice.

The present case does not involve any illegal or backdoor  appointment.  The  petitioner  was  engaged  against a  genuine requirement, has rendered long and blemish-free service, and her engagement was known and acknowledged by the authorities.

The judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cannot be mechanically applied to deny relief in cases of irregular but long-continued employment, especially where the State itself has failed to streamline  its recruitment process despite  repeated judicial pronouncements.

The continued extraction of work from the petitioner for decades without  regularization violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by treating her unequally vis-à-vis similarly situated employees and by denying equal opportunity in public employment.

Further, such prolonged insecurity of tenure violates Article 21, as it deprives the petitioner of dignity, livelihood, and social security. The State, as a model constitutional employer, cannot sacrifice fundamental rights at the altar of administrative convenience.

Furthermore, although this Court had directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order, the impugned decision merely reiterates technical objections without addressing the substance, equity and constitutional dimensions of the petitioner’s claim.

Such mechanical compliance frustrates the purpose of judicial review and is contrary to the settled principles of fair, transparent, and accountable decision-making.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, this Court holds that the impugned Letter No. 238 dated 30.01.2019 is arbitrary, unconstitutional and unsustainable in law, and deserves to be, and, is hereby, quashed and set-aside.

Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and pay her due salary and all consequential benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.