JUDGMENT : [S.N. Pathak, J.] 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since common issues are involved in all these writ petitions and as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. All these writ petitions have been filed at the instance of the petitioners, who were appointed in the service of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘Corporation’) on contractual basis and subsequently all of them were regularized in service with effect from 12.5.2012. They are claiming the benefit of regularization. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.5.2016 (Annexure-26) as also the Board Resolution dated 10.6.2016 (Annexure-27), whereby the petitioners’ claim for extending the benefit of regularisation has been rejected. 4. As per factual matrix, all the petitioners were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts pursuant to advertisement floated by the respondent Corporation after following due procedure. Though the appointments were for limited period, but the same got extended from time to time as per Annexure-4 series and Annexure-6 series. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 24th meeting held on 11.8.2010 took a decision to enhance the period of their contract to next three years. In 29th meeting, it was decided to examine the cadre scheme and service conditions of the contractual employees. Thereafter, in 32nd meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 12.5.2012, it was decided to adopt and approve the recommendation of the committee dated 6.2.2012 regarding absorption of those working for three years or more years after joining pursuant to open advertisement or five or more otherwise. Pursuant thereto, office order dated 6.11.2012 was issued, whereby, services of contractual employees were regularised with effect from 12.5.2012, which includes the names of present petitioners also. Clause 3 thereof stipulates that the pay structure as fixed by the cadre scheme and service condition of the regularised employees as adopted by the Corporation shall be effective from 2.11.2012. Consequently, different office orders were issued separately to each of the petitioners on 8.1.2015 mentioning therein the service conditions, pay structure and the effective date of regularisation i.e. 2.11.2012. This office order also mentions the Board Resolution No. 32/01 and 29/10, as also the Board Resolution No. 37/36/07, which were, however, irrelevant in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. The resolution no. This office order also mentions the Board Resolution No. 32/01 and 29/10, as also the Board Resolution No. 37/36/07, which were, however, irrelevant in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. The resolution no. 37/36/07 was concerned with the daily rated employees, who were regularised much later to the present petitioners. 5. To be more specific, it would be relevant to mention here that the resolution no. 37/36/07 was related to daily rated employees in the Corporation. On the basis of a newspaper report dated 23.1.2015, the Under Secretary, Mines Department, issued a letter on 25.1.2015 informing the Managing Director of the Corporation that all the appointments made by the Corporation as published in newspaper is hereby stayed. Thereafter, by order dated 27.1.2015, the Department has ordered to constitute a committee to enquire into the matters relating to appointments/ regularisation in the Corporation. Consequently, the Corporation issued an office order dated 28.1.2015 to the effect that ‘all appointments made in January, 2015 shall be kept in abeyance’. Because of this letter, the petitioners are deprived from getting the benefits arising out of regularisation of their services. 6. Petitioners have earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3241 of 2015, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider their cases, which ultimately resulted in rejection of the petitioners’ claim by passing the reasoned order dated 16.6.2016. Hence, the petitioners again approached this Court for claiming the benefit of regularisation. 7. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel, for the petitioners submits that even as regards the cases of daily rated employees of the Corporation, the issue for grant of benefit of regularization has been decided by this Court in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta Vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited & Ors., decided on 31.8.2016 in W.P.(S) No. 2156 of 2015, whereby, this Court had directed the respondents to give all due benefits with effect from the date of his regularization and while giving such direction, it was also considered by this Court that even there is some inquiry pending with respect to appointment/regularisation and other affairs with respect to 36th and 37 Board meeting, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit. Learned counsel submits that said Anirudh Kumar Gupta was regularised pursuant to 36/37/07 meeting of the Board of Director, whereas, the present petitioners were regularised pursuant to 32nd Board meeting. Therefore, learned counsel further submits that existence of so-called enquiry, has no bearing upon the entitlement of the petitioners to receive the benefit of regularisation granted way back in the year 2012 itself. Learned counsel further submits that the direction issued in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta (supra) was complied with, when the Division Bench of this Court had been pleased to refuse to grant stay vide order dated 7.11.2017 in L.P.A. No. 476 of 2016, against which, the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed vide order dated 20.4.2018 passed in S.L.P.(C) No. 9017 of 2018. Learned counsel further submits that even the decision taken in 32nd Board meeting, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularised, has not been annulled. Though the Board of Director in its 42nd meeting dated 18.5.2016 decided to reject the representation of the petitioners seeking the benefit of regularisation, which was submitted by the petitioners pursuant to direction given in earlier round of litigation. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the rejection of the claim of the petitioners for getting benefit of regularisation by the respondents is erroneous considerations and suffers from unreasonableness and arbitrariness. Learned counsel lastly submits that a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to extend all the benefits of regularisation to the petitioners with effect from 12.5.2012. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the regularisation was not done by the competent authority. Referring to counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that order of regularisation was not passed by the Board of Directors, who was authorised to pass such order of regularisation. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that the reservation policy and the roster was not looked into and therefore, the regularisation of the petitioners stood nullified and the order passed by the respondents calls for no interference. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to direction given by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3241 of 2015, the respondents have rightly rejected the representation of the petitioners after considering each and every aspects of the matter, which deserves no interference. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to direction given by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3241 of 2015, the respondents have rightly rejected the representation of the petitioners after considering each and every aspects of the matter, which deserves no interference. Learned counsel also submits that considering aforesaid aspects, there is some enquiry pending and only after outcome of the enquiry, the respondents will be in a position to state as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of regularisation, as claimed by them or not. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Admittedly, the services of the petitioners were regularised pursuant to 32nd Board Meeting. The said order of regularisation has not been annulled till date and it has attained finality. (ii) The issue regarding regularisation of the similarly situated person, whose service was regularised in the Board meeting of 36th and 37th meetings of Director, fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta Vs. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited & Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 2156 of 2015, decided on 31.8.2016, wherein, this Court after considering every aspects of the matter, directed the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner of that case with consequential benefit. The Court was also viewed that pendency of the enquiry will not come in the way of the regularisation of the service in giving the benefits. (iii) The judgment delivered in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta (supra) was considered by the respondents, when the respondents lost up the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in S.L.P. (C) No. 9017 of 2018 and on both stages, they lost. Thereafter the benefits of regularisation has been given to said Anirudh Kumar Gupta. (iv) Similar is the case of the present petitioners and as such, they are entitled for the same benefits. Similar contentions were raised by the petitioners in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta (supra), which was turned down and not accepted. Thereafter the benefits of regularisation has been given to said Anirudh Kumar Gupta. (iv) Similar is the case of the present petitioners and as such, they are entitled for the same benefits. Similar contentions were raised by the petitioners in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta (supra), which was turned down and not accepted. Here also in the instant matters, the respondents have raised similar contention that regularisation of the present petitioners was not done by the competent authority and was not confirmed by the Board of Directors and even the roster policy was not followed and as such, the regularisation stood nullified. (v) Nothing has been brought on record to show that the order of regularisation, pursuant to 32nd meeting of the petitioners, was ever been withdrawn or recalled. (vi) Admittedly the petitioners are still working under the respondents Corporation. The benefits of regularisation ought to have been given with effect from 12.5.2012 which was the order of regularization in 32nd meeting of Director. It is not the case of the respondents that the 32nd meeting was not ever held and no order of regularisation was ever passed, rather, the same has been implemented. The contention of the respondents that the order was not in consonance with law, as it was not approved by the Board of Directors, is not at all accepted to this Court in view of the findings derived in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta (supra). (vii) The respondents in the counter affidavit in W.P.(S) No. 5011 of 2004 had stated that the respondent Corporation in its meeting of the Board of Directors had decided to regularise the service of employees and the statement to that effect was also made by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, which clearly shows that the services of the employers were regularised and only because of the pending enquiry with respect to appointment/regularisation and other affairs of the Corporation with respect to 36th and 37th Board Meetings, it cannot be annulled. The Court in W.P.(S) No. 2156 of 2015 had clearly observed in paras-16 and 17, which read as under:- 16. The Court in W.P.(S) No. 2156 of 2015 had clearly observed in paras-16 and 17, which read as under:- 16. In view of the aforementioned discussions, though it is the stand of the respondent Corporation that there is some inquiry pending by the State Government with respect to the appointment/regularisation and other affairs of the respondent Corporation with respect to 36th and 37th Board Meetings, even during the pendency of any such inquiry, if any, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, which has accrued to the petitioner by order dated 31.1.2014, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5011 of 2004, as contained in Annexure-5 writ application, due to action of the respondent Corporation themselves. 17. In that view of the matter, the respondent Corporation is directed to give all due benefits to the petitioner, arising out of its office order, vide Memo No. 61 dated 8.1.2015, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application, even during the pendency of the inquiry by the State Government, if any, positively within the period of eight weeks from the date of communication/production of this order. (viii) In view of the observations and directions passed in the case of Anirudh Kumar Gupta (supra), the respondents have regularised the service of Anirudh Kumar Gupta and as such, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same and similar benefit as has been given to said Anirudh Kumar Gupta. (ix) Similar issue has also been decided by this Court in the case of Satya Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 179 and that of W.P.(S) No. 5350 of 2010, disposed of on 11.7.2011 in the case of Pawan Mistri & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & ors. (x) Even considering the cases of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 01 and the latest decision of the Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 , it can comfortably be inferred that the cases of the petitioners have not been rejected on the ground that any misconduct is there on the part of the petitioners. This issue has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court and a clear direction has been given while deciding the cases of regularisation as to what would be the formula. This issue has been elaborately dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court and a clear direction has been given while deciding the cases of regularisation as to what would be the formula. The rejection order does not fall within the ambit of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). On that count also, the case of the petitioners succeed. Para-10 of the said Judgment is necessary to be quoted herein: “10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct, etc.” 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the order dated 18.05.2016 (Annexure-26), as also Board Resolution dated 10.6.2016 (Annexure-27) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to give all due benefits to the petitioners, arising out of office order dated 6.11.2012 (Annexure-11), even during the pendency of the enquiry by the State Government, if any, positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Regarding other claims, it is open for the petitioners to raise the same before the competent authority/appropriate forum. 11. All these writ petitions are accordingly allowed, with the directions as above.