##PAGE1##

1

SYED

ROSHAN

ZAMIR

ALI

Digitally

signed by 2026:CGHC:6489

SYED

ROSHAN

ZAMIR ALI NAFR

Date:

2026.02.07

17:12:24

+0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 718 of 2024

1. Ramkumar S/o Suberam Gadariya Aged About 52 Years R/o

Village - Kodiya, Post - Devaribhat, Tehsil - Khairagarh,

District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Presently Khairagarh-

Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water

Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,

Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2. Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water

Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. Executive Engineer Water Resources Division - Chuikhadan,

District - Rajnandgaon (Presently Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-

Gandai) (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Kumarani, Panel Lawyer

SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

05/02/2026

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.4.2023

by which respondent No.2 rejected representation of

petitioner seeking regularization in service.

2

2. Facts of case, in brief, are that petitioner joined as a daily

wage employee in Water Resources Department on 4.5.1998.

On 30.6.2007 petitioner was discontinued from service

without any notice or retrenchment compensation, which was

put to challenge by him before the Labour Court. Vide award

dated 9.10.2012 learned Labour Court ordered for

reinstatement of petitioner in service. Petitioner was

reinstated in service w.e.f. 22.1.2013. After completion of 10

years of service, petitioner submitted representation before

the respondent Department on 22.2.2023 to regularize his

services. Representation submitted by petitioner was rejected

vide order dated 18.4.2023 on the ground that as per Circular

dated 5.3.2008 issued by the General Administration

Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh Raipur, services of the

daily wage employees engaged in between 01.01.1989 to

31.12.1997 are to be only regularized as per law and as

petitioner has been engaged after 31.12.1997, he is not

eligible for regularization in service under Circular dated

5.3.2008.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has

already put in more than two decades as daily wager in the

respondent Department and as such, he is entitled for benefit

of regularization. However, the respondent department has

rejected claim of petitioner for regularization on the ground

3

that petitioner does not fulfill requirement under the Circular

dated 5.3.2008. He submits that daily wagers, who are in

continuous service for more than 10 years, are required to be

regularized and for that, the benefit of ‘one time measure’

could not come into the way. In support of his submission, he

placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others, reported in

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Dharam Singh & ors vs.

State of UP & another, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818.

He further contended that in the light of the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka v.

Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 also petitioner is fit to

be considered for regularization as he has already served

uninterruptedly more than two decades in respondent

Department and refusal of the respondent authorities to

regularize the petitioner is violative of his fundamental rights

under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He,

therefore, submits that under such circumstances, this writ

petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to

regularize the service of petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that as per Circular

dated 5.3.2008, services of only those daily waged

employees are to be regularized who were engaged in

service prior to 31.12.1997, as one time measure. Since the

4

petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee after

31.12.1997, claim of petitioner for regularization in service is

rejected, which is just and proper and does not call for any

interference.

5