The court ruled that past services of an employee cannot be disregarded for regularization if they meet the criteria set by government circulars and Supreme Court directives.

Order :

(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P/9) and 18.02.2021 (Annexure P/10) and also to direct the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner along with all consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment i.e. 25.07.1989.

2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is appointed as Choukidar on 25.07.1989 on Collector rate by respondent No. 6/Block Development Officer, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The petitioner worked from 25.07.1989 to 31.03.2014. On 31.03.2014 his services were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer/Respondent No. 5 alleging that he was negligence towards discharging his duty. Thereafter, he moved an application before the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Mahasamund for condoning his negligence and prayed for reinstatement. Considering his prayer he was reinstated on 01.08.2014 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund. Thereafter the petitioner moved a representation for regularization of his services to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara who has forwarded the same to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Mahasamund and in turn Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund forwarded the matter to the Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service Development Officer, Vikas Bhawan. The matter was pending between government departments.

3. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Mahasamund directed Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara to constitute a committee for scrutinizing the case of the petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara constituted a committee who has ascertained the record wherein past record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration and also considering that since there was no regular post available and also on the count that he has been reinstated on 01.08.2014, therefore, case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P/9). Thereafter the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Mahasamund has also written a letter to the Development Commissioner Raipur mentioning the fact that since no vacant posts are available and also on the count that he has been reinstated on 01.08.2014 his case cannot be considered for regularization vide its memo dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P/10). Being aggrieved with these Memos/orders the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per circular issued by the State Government on 05.03.2008 the petitioner has already completed more than 10 years of service prior to his discontinuation from service, thus his case should have been considered. Secondly, he would submit that even if the posts are not lying vacant still the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 144 in paragraph 18 has issued direction to regularize the workmen even if the posts are not vacant. Thus, he would pray for quashing of the impugned orders dated 04.08.2021 and 12.08.2021.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and State support the orders passed by the respondents and would submit that since the petitioner was discontinued from his service, therefore, past services rendered by him have lost its significance for considering regularization and would submit that the impugned orders are legal and justified which do not warrant any interference by this Court. They would further submit that since posts are not available, therefore, no regularization can be ordered and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not come in rescue of the petitioner and would pray for di