Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a citizen cannot be subjected to adverse consequences merely for approaching a court to seek protection of their legal or constitutional rights, observing that retaliatory action against a litigant strikes at the rule of law.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan was hearing a petition filed by contractual employees of the Jharkhand Government who challenged the rejection of their claims for regularisation and their subsequent disengagement from service.

The petitioners had been appointed as Clerk, Typist, Coordinator, Driver and Pump Operator in the Engineering Cell of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare. They claimed to have worked continuously for more than 10 years, with their contractual engagements being extended from time to time.

The petitioners had earlier approached the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2016, following which the Court had directed the authorities to consider their regularisation. The State challenged that order before a Division Bench, but the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter initiated contempt proceedings. Subsequently, the authorities passed an order refusing regularisation. That order was again challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1021 of 2020, which was allowed by the High Court on 15.01.2024, with a direction to reconsider their cases for regularisation in light of Supreme Court judgments.

However, the Building Construction Department subsequently rejected their claims through orders dated 14.08.2024, stating that the petitioners had not been appointed against sanctioned posts, their appointments had not been approved by the competent authority and the prescribed procedure had not been followed.

The High Court found these grounds to be contradicted by the State's own records. The departmental file notings showed approval of the petitioners' appointments by the Principal Secretary, while a communication dated 28.04.2016 from the Chief Engineer demonstrated that they had been working against sanctioned posts. The Court also noted that there was no formal order disengaging the petitioners and that no reason for their disengagement had been disclosed. The petitioners had, however, been forcibly disengaged immediately after the pronouncement of the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaggo v. Union of India, the Court noted that termination of employees immediately after they approached the Court for redressal could amount to an attempt to defeat their legitimate claim. The Court held:

“No Citizen can be visited with adverse consequences merely for having approached a Court of Law for protection of his/her Constitutional rights. The rights to move a Court is itself a Constitutional right, and any action taken by way of reprisal against a citizen for having invoked such right strikes at the very root of rule of law. Disengaging from services without any show cause or formal order on consequences that employee had knocked at the door of the Court is certainly illegal.”

The Court further observed that such conduct by the State and its instrumentalities was “wholly impermissible” and that the practice of penalising litigants merely for exercising their constitutional remedies must cease.

In the facts of the case, the High Court held that the authorities' action in disengaging the petitioners without a formal order or show cause notice, immediately after the earlier litigation, was arbitrary and mala fide.

The Court also held that the petitioners' appointments could not be treated as illegal merely because an advertisement had not been published, observing that such appointments could, in the circumstances, be treated as irregular rather than illegal. Taking into account that the petitioners had worked for more than 10 years and that their work was perennial rather than temporary in nature, the Court held that their services ought to be regularised.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the orders dated 14.08.2024 and directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits and issue formal orders of regularisation within six weeks.

Case: Dharo Oraon and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(S) No. 315 of 2025

Appearance: For the Petitioners – Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate. For the Respondent – Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-I.

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: