Amita Kumari & Ors. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, launched the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme in the year 2003-04, now implemented under the framework of the National Health Mission, for prevention and control of six major vector-borne diseases. In Jharkhand, with its heavy forest cover, large tribal population and high burden of Malaria and Kala-azar, the programme has immense significance. For its implementation, State of Jharkhand created supervisory as well as non-supervisory field positions. The MTS and KTS are supervisory field functionaries who form the link between the District Medical Officers and the grassroots workers, while Multi-Purpose Workers (Male) [MPWs (M)] are the non-supervisory field workers.

In March 2008, the Central Government declared Jharkhand a Malaria-endemic State, with all 24 districts affected by Malaria, 17 by Filaria and 4 by Kala-azar. The State thereupon engaged MTS, KTS and MPWs(M) on contractual basis.

The Petitioners except Late Birendra Prasad, who died during pendency of the writ petition on 24^th September, 2025, his widow being the legal heir namely, Amita Kumari was substituted as Petitioner no.1 vide order passed by this Court; were appointed as MTS and KTS by Respondent-State of Jharkhand on contract basis pursuant to advertisements issued from time to time. Their appointments were initially for one year but, in view of the perennial nature of the work, the contracts of the petitioners, as also of the MPWs (M), have been renewed from time to time. The posts held by the petitioners are supervisory, district-cadre posts, and the MPWs(M) engaged under the same programme work directly under their supervision. The particulars of the petitioners are as under:-

By communication dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure-3), the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed all State Governments to frame a clear plan for augmentation of human resources by creation of posts, and specifically to move away from contractual engagements to the creation of regular posts, both for human resources and for programme management. The Respondent-State, however, neither created regular supervisory posts, nor framed any policy for absorption of the petitioners.

By letter dated 23.06.2014, the Central Government informed Respondent State of Jharkhand that it would not support the manpower of MPWs (M) beyond 30.09.2014. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure-6), Respondent No. 2, through its Additional Director, directed the State to initiate action for sustaining the manpower under the VBD Programme, making it clear that Central Government would not support the manpower component after 31.03.2017.

The withdrawal of central support led to the disengagement of approximately 2,300 MPWs (M) across State of Jharkhand. The post of MPWs(M) being perennial in nature, the Department of Health and Family Welfare, by letter dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure-4), recommended the creation of 2,150 posts of MPWs(M), and in a meeting held on 27.08.2015 the State decided to appoint MPWs(M) on contract basis in regular pay-scale. Recruitment was thereafter initiated by Advertisement No. 13/2015 dated 22.12.2015 ( Annexure-5). Thus, though belatedly, the State acted upon the directive of the Government of India in respect of MPWs(M); no similar step was taken in respect of the petitioners.

Facing the loss of their livelihood after 31.03.2017, Petitioners approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016. In paragraph 13 of its supplementary counter affidavit, Respondent-State stated that the proposal for absorption of the KTS and MTS at par with MPWs(M) had been sent to the higher authorities, and that a final decision would be taken after reference to the Law Department, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, and the Finance Department.

On the strength of that statement, the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 10.09.2018 ( Annexure-7), with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Family Welfare, and the Director-in-Chief, Directorate of Health Services, that, the scheme being still subsisting in the State and the cases of the petitioners being at par with those of MPWs(M), a conscious decision be taken for regularisation/absorption of the services of the petitioners in accordance with law.

However, No such decision was taken. Instead, after a delay of more than three years, the State preferred L.P.A. No. 212 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 03.05.2023 (Annexure-8) on the ground of delay. The State then approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 37881 of 2023, which was disposed of on 21.02.2025 (Annexure-9) with a direction to the State to consider the case of the petitioners on its own merits.

Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-10) rejecting the claim of the petitioners on three grounds, namely:

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It has been submitted that petitioners having due qualifications prescribed for the posts of MTS and KTS, were appointed pursuant to public advertisements, and have continuously discharged supervisory duties under the VBD Programme for 14 to 18 years. The work is perennial, as the State itself has recognised in the case of MPWs (M).

It has been contended that despite the directions of the Central Government dated 21.12.2011 and 02.07.2014, the State has taken no step to create regular posts of technical supervisors or to frame any policy for sustaining the manpower under the VBD Programme.

It has been urged that the case of the petitioners is identical to that of the MPWs (M): both were engaged under the same programme, in the same mode and manner, and both have been continued by annual renewals. The MPWs (M) in fact work under the supervision of the petitioners. Having created 2,150 posts for the MPWs (M) notwithstanding the withdrawal of central support, the State could not deny the same treatment to their supervisors i.e. the petitioners. This plea of discrimination, it is submitted, has not been dealt with at all in the impugned order.

It was also submitted that the impugned order disregards the stand taken by the respondent State on affidavit in W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016. The State having undertaken that the claim would be decided after reference to the Law, Personnel and Finance Departments, the impugned order does not even disclose that such reference was made.

In the alternative, it was submitted that the functions, duties and qualifications of the posts held by the petitioners are the same as those of the post of Malaria Inspector, and several sanctioned posts of Malaria Inspector are lying vacant in the Respondent State, and that the petitioners ought at least to have been considered for absorption against those posts. This aspect, too, has not been considered.

Reliance is placed upon Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-

Learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the National Health Mission is a centrally sponsored scheme under which engagements are made on temporary and contractual basis as part of the programme arrangements.

It was also submitted that the petitioners were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts of the Health Department, but against need-based positions, and that their honorarium is paid out of the funds made available to National Health Mission, Jharkhand by the Government of India. They are, therefore, temporary contractual employees of the Jharkhand Health Mission.

It was further submitted that the National Health Mission, Jharkhand implements the schemes of the Government of India on the basis of an annual work plan and budget. The Government of India and the State contribute 60% and 40% of the budget respectively, and the posts required for programme implementation are approved annually by the National Health Mission, New Delhi. Personnel are engaged for one year at a time and, if the need persists, their contracts are extended for a further year after annual performance evaluation.

Lastly, it was pointed out that the appointment letters of the petitioners expressly stated that their appointment was purely temporary and on contract, and that no claim to regular appointment would be entertained.

The facts leading to the present controversy are not in dispute. In W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016, Respondent-State of Jharkhand stated on affidavit that the proposal for absorption of the Petitioners at par with MPWs(M) had been sent to the higher authorities, and that a final decision would be taken after the matter was examined by the Law Department, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, and the Finance Department. The writ petition was disposed of on the strength of that statement. The State’s appeal against that judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay, and its Special Leave Petition was disposed of with a direction to reconsider the case on its own merits.

From the above narrated admitted facts, two consequences follow. Firstly, the State’s challenge having failed at every stage, the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 5037 of 2016 has attained finality, and the State remains bound by the stand recorded therein. Secondly, the State was obliged to consider the claim of the petitioners on its merits, by a reasoned decision, and through the very process which it had itself represented to this Court.

A statement made by the State on affidavit before a Court of law is not an empty formality. Having represented that the claim of the petitioners would be decided after examination by the Law, Personnel and Finance Departments, the State cannot be permitted to take a contrary course and reject the claim without undertaking that exercise. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.

Equally, a direction to consider a claim “on its own merits” requires a real, objective and reasoned consideration of that claim. It is not satisfied by a recital of the claim followed by its rejection. Reasons are the link between the material on record and the conclusion reached, and an administrative order affecting the rights of employees must disclose them.

Tested on these principles, the impugned order does not withstand scrutiny. It does not disclose that the matter was ever placed before the Law Department, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, or the Finance Department; nor does it refer to any opinion of those Departments. It does not deal with the petitioners’ alternative claim for absorption against the vacant posts of Malaria Inspector. The order is cryptic and non-speaking, and it is not a consideration of the case on its own merits as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Apart from the above, on the question of parity also, the Petitioners’ claim was not considered. It is not in dispute that the petitioners as well as the MPWs (M) were engaged by the Respondent-State under the VBD Programme, on contract basis, pursuant to advertisements issued from time to time, and that, in view of the perennial nature of the work, the contracts of both were renewed year after year. It is equally undisputed that the MPWs (M) work directly under the supervision of the petitioners in the field.

When the Central Government withdrew its support for the MPWs (M) with effect from 30.09.2014, the State did not treat that withdrawal as the end of the matter. Recognising that the work was perennial, it recommended the creation of 2,150 posts of MPWs (M) and decided to engage them in regular pay-scale. The State’s own conduct thus shows that neither the source of funding, nor the absence of sanctioned posts, was regarded by it as an insurmountable obstacle where the work was perennial.

The respondents have offered no reason, either in the impugned order or before this Court, as to why the supervisors engaged under the same programme should be treated differently from the field workers whom they supervise. Unequal treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, is the very antithesis of Article 14.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of decisions that selective regularisation of some workers in the same establishment, while others with comparable tenure and duties are left on precarious terms, is a clear violation of equity. The denial of parity to the petitioners is, therefore, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Point (ii) is answered in favour of the petitioners.

The objections raised by the State, namely that the petitioners are contractual, that they are engaged under a centrally sponsored scheme and paid out of central funds, and that there are no sanctioned posts, must be examined in the light of the settled position of law.

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench drew a distinction between appointments that are illegal and those that are merely irregular, and itself contemplated in paragraph 53, a one-time measure for regularising persons who had served for ten years or more against duly sanctioned posts without the cover of orders of courts or tribunals.

In the instant case, the petitioners were not engaged through any back door. They were appointed pursuant to public advertisements, possessing the prescribed qualifications, and have served continuously for 14 to 18 years. Their engagement cannot be described as illegal.

The objection that there are no sanctioned posts stands on no better footing. The absence of sanctioned posts is the direct result of the Respondent State’s own inaction in the face of the Central Government’s communications dated 21.12.2011 and 02.07.2014, which specifically called upon the Respondent State to create regular posts and to plan for sustaining the manpower under the VBD Programme. The State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default, particularly when, in the case of the MPWs(M), it found it possible to create posts.

Nor can the label of 1-year contractual engagement be decisive. The respondents’ own case is that contracts are renewed only where the need persists. The uninterrupted renewal of the petitioners’ contracts for 14 to 18 years is, by the respondents’ own test, proof that the need is permanent. Similarly, the stipulation in the appointment letters that no claim to regular appointment would be entertained cannot override the constitutional guarantee of equality, more so when the employee had no real choice but to accept the terms offered by the State.

The State itself recognised the perennial nature of the work under the VBD Programme by creating posts for the MPWs(M); it represented to this Court on affidavit that the absorption of the petitioners at par with MPWs(M) was under active consideration; and it has, for over eight years since, neither taken a decision, nor offered any reason for its inaction.

In Dharam Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in comparable circumstances, directed the creation of supernumerary posts for the regularisation of long-serving workers. Remitting the matter yet again for consideration would, in these circumstances, serve no purpose and would only prolong the uncertainty which the petitioners have endured for decades.

Having regard to the above discussions, this Court hold that the impugned order is contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and to the stand of the Respondent-State recorded on affidavit, and is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The sustained service rendered by the petitioners for over a decade, on work which the State itself treats as perennial, entitles them to regularisation, and its denial would perpetuate a manifest injustice.

This writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the following directions are issued:-

It is made clear that this Court has been constrained to issue the aforesaid directions in view of the conduct of the Respondent-State. The State failed to act upon its own statement made on affidavit before this Court; its appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay; and it failed to consider the claim of the petitioners on its own merits despite the specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Any further failure on the part of the respondents to comply with this judgment within the stipulated period shall be viewed seriously.

Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, for immediate compliance.

The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.