1. Service absorption of employee transferred from MPSRTC to CIDC and on deputation — State policy circular — Rejection for lack of vacant post. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Bhagwan Das Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 5434 of 2022
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Khulesh Sahu
For the Respondents: Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Raghvendra Verma, Anup Majumdar, Vibhor Goverdhan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Khulesh Sahu
For the Respondents: Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Raghvendra Verma, Anup Majumdar, Vibhor Goverdhan
The State, as a model employer, cannot arbitrarily deny absorption to long-serving employees who have a legitimate expectation of regularization, especially when such engagement followed a lawful selection process, as this would violate the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Legitimate Expectation and Absorption of Service - The court examined the rights of an employee previously working with the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C., later placed under the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), and deputed to a Municipal Council, seeking absorption in service as per a state policy circular dated 10.12.2007.
(B) Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Where employees have discharged duties for a considerable length of time, a legitimate expectation arises that the State will recognize their continuous service. This doctrine serves as a check on arbitrariness in State action and is applicable where engagement followed a lawful selection procedure, acting as a safeguard under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in 2002 and sent on deputation from CIDC to the Urban Administration Department in 2004, subsequently serving in Municipal Council Dhamdha. Despite a policy decision on 10.12.2007 to absorb such employees, the petitioner's claim was rejected on 30.03.2022 on the grounds that no vacant post existed in Municipal Council Dhamdha. The petitioner sought absorption against any vacant and sanctioned post within the state, noting his upcoming retirement in May 2026.
Findings of Court:
The court found it just and proper that the petitioner's claim for absorption should be considered against any sanctioned and vacant post available across any of the Municipal Councils or Municipal Corporations of the State of Chhattisgarh, rather than being limited to one specific council.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for absorption in service against available sanctioned posts in the State based on the government's policy and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Ratio Decidendi: Drawing from the Supreme Court's reasoning in Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand, the court emphasized that the State, as a model employer, must act fairly and avoid arbitrary decisions that frustrate the legitimate expectations of long-serving employees. The refusal to absorb a qualified employee solely based on the unavailability of a post in one specific location, while posts may exist elsewhere in the state, is contrary to the principles of fairness.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to consider absorption and the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for absorption based on state policy and legitimate expectation — Respondents oppose citing no vacant post and no right to absorption. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Petition disposed — Direction to consider absorption against any vacant post in Municipal Councils/Corporations — Impugned order quashed. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Can contractual employees invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation for absorption after long service?
Yes, if engagement was preceded by a proper selection process, legitimate expectation arises from repeated extensions and consistent performance; the State cannot arbitrarily deny absorption without cogent reasons. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. What are the limits on perpetual contractual engagements by the State?
The State cannot exploit employees by engaging them on contractual basis perpetually without regularizing; such practice is arbitrary and violates Article 14; the State must act as a model employer. (Para 6 )
6. Can a court direct creation of supernumerary posts for absorption?
No, unless supported by legal provision or precedent; the court declined to issue such direction in absence of any law or authority. (Para 7 )
Order on Board
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
08/04/2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.A To kindly direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for absorption of service of the Petitioner according to the decision taken by the State Government with respect to absorption of the employees of erstwhile MPSRTC who are working under CIDC and in deputation.
10.B To quash/set aside the order dated 30.03.2022/Annexure P/1, issued by Deputy Secretary of Urban Administration and Development Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh, and
10.C Any other relief(s) in favour of Petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost. ”
2. Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the petitioner was working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C., however after creation of the State of Chhattisgarh a separate Road Transport Corporation was not constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, his services were placed in the control of respondent / Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short ‘C.I.D.C’). He would submit that the services of the petitioner were deputed with Municipal Council, Dhamdha from 23.09.2004 and since then he is working there on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. He would submit that the State Government has issued number of circulars with intent to absorb services of the employees working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C. He would contend that representations were made and when no heed was paid, WPS No.2960 of 2015 was filed and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for absorption of services in light of the Circular dated 10.12.2007. He would submit that the representation so made by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 30.03.2022 on the ground that there is no vacant post of Assistant Revenue Inspector in Municipal Council, Dhamdha. Mr. Khulesh Sahu would further submit that as policy decision was taken by the State Government to absorb services of the employees transferred from M.P.S.R.T.C. to the State of Chhattisgarh, and posts are lying vacant with Municipal Corporations / Councils of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, respondent authorities ought to have considered the name of the petitioner for absorption of services against any vacant and sanctioned post. He would submit that the State has created 05 supernumerary posts to adjust the similarly situated employees. He would contend that the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation in the month of May, 2026. Mr. Khulesh Sahu has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim absorption of his services as matter of right. They would contend that in absence of sanctioned and vacant post, the claim of the petitioner could not be considered. It is argued that the petitioner is an employee of Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, whereas at present he is working with Municipal Council, Dhamdha and his services cannot be absorbed in any other Corporation as he is an employee of a body corporate. They would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
5. The services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2002. Vide order dated 29.05.2004, the petitioner was sent on deputation from CIDC to Urban Administration Department on the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and thereafter the petitioner has been posted on the said post in Municipal Coun
