JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 30.04.2019 contained in Annexure-11 whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularization/absorption has been rejected on the basis of enquiry report dated 11.02.2016. 4. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on 19.11.1979 against the sanctioned and vacant post on account of leave vacancy. The said appointment letter is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Thereafter a fresh notification was issued on 26.12.1979 after the person who was on leave namely, Mohan Prasad who returned back and the petitioner’s service has been extended and posted in different circle i.e. Jharia Circle on account of non-availability of fresh clerk against the sanctioned and vacant post in view of Annexure-2 of the writ petition. On 27.04.1983 another letter was issued stating therein that the case of the petitioner is not case of leave vacancy on account of issuance of fresh letter of posting of the petitioner in a different circle. The petitioner was provided pay-scale in view of the fact that the petitioner has passed departmental examination on 01.07.1989 but after lapse of several years, the service of the petitioner has not been confirmed whereas the persons who were appointed later on namely, Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Vimalendu Kumar, Vikash Kumar and Ramesh Prasad, e.t.c. whose services have been confirmed vide memo dated 15.07.2005 and they were provided benefit of ACP also. The petitioner is still working but the respondents by the impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4199 of 2011 for quashing the decision dated 11.12.2016 by which the claim of regularization has been rejected. The Court after going through the materials on record, quashed the impugned decision dated 11.02.2016 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for regularization and pass reasoned order. Pursuant thereto impugned order has been passed. The Court after going through the materials on record, quashed the impugned decision dated 11.02.2016 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for regularization and pass reasoned order. Pursuant thereto impugned order has been passed. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that only on the basis of two grounds impugned order has been passed. He submits that earlier enquiry report dated 11.02.2016 has been taken into consideration. He submits that this enquiry report was already quashed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and this ground has been taken into consideration in the impugned order, thus this ground is not tenable. He further submits that second ground has been taken for notice dated 13.02.2015 with regard to regularization of the service in terms of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4199 of 2011 is concerned, that has wrongly been interpreted and it has been said that in the impugned order there is no modification in the notice. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was not appointed on the sanctioned post. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed against one LDC post and on these grounds, impugned decision has been taken. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is working with the respondents since 1979 which is not denied in the counter-affidavit. Thus, in view of the fact that the enquiry report dated 11.02.2016 was quashed by this Court, there were no occasion to pass impugned order on the basis of enquiry report dated 11.02.2016 which has already been quashed and the petitioner was allowed to work till date. It has been submitted at bar that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.01.2021. The respondents were required to take decision in accordance with law in view of the long continuation of service of the petitioner. The amendment which has been issued by the State of Jharkhand in Rule, 2015 for appointment where in the said Rule cut-off date is 20.06.2019 in view of the “Uma Devi” case. The respondents were required to take decision in accordance with law in view of the long continuation of service of the petitioner. The amendment which has been issued by the State of Jharkhand in Rule, 2015 for appointment where in the said Rule cut-off date is 20.06.2019 in view of the “Uma Devi” case. The case of the petitioner may be irregular though the petitioner has worked for approximately 41 years thereafter he is going to retire on 31.01.2021. In view of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others” reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 , the case of the petitioner is on better footing for regularization. The appointment of the petitioner may be irregular but in view of the fact that the petitioner has served for a long time, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. In this regard reference may be made to the case of ““State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari.” reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 7.(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.” 8. The facts remains that the petitioner is in continuation of service and e is going to retire on 31.01.2021. The onus lies on the State as to why no decision has been taken by the respondents for regularization of service for such a long years as the petitioner is working continuously in the aforesaid period. The persons who have been appointed later on, have been confirmed as indicated in paragraphs nos. The onus lies on the State as to why no decision has been taken by the respondents for regularization of service for such a long years as the petitioner is working continuously in the aforesaid period. The persons who have been appointed later on, have been confirmed as indicated in paragraphs nos. 10 & 11 of the writ petition. The recommendation for confirmation dated 19.09.2007 is also there as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Such a long period of service rendered by the petitioner, cannot be ignored without any justification. 9. As a cumulative effects of the above discussions, it transpires that rejection order is erroneous which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly, impugned order dated 30.04.2019 is quashed. The respondent-State is directed to regularize the service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.