NAFR

Order on Board

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to quash the order dated 23.09.2020(AnnexureP-6) directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their eligibility alongwith all consequential monetary and service benefits including the seniority.

10.2. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioners including the cost of the petition.”

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are the employees of the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management. Initially, petitioner No.4 was appointed on the post of Peon (Recovery Agent) for a period of six months in the year 1983, whereas, other petitioners were appointed in the year 2005 on a fixed pay scale. The petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent authorities claiming relief of regularization on the basis of their long service. The representation was forwarded to the Secretary, Revenue Department by the Deputy Collector, District Koriya on 28.07.2011. The Collector vide its letter dated 05.02.2019 recommended regularization of the petitioners and other similarly situated Recovery Agents. The said authorities specifically stated that the petitioners worked for a period of six months in a calender year. But when no heed was paid, WPS No.9520 of 2019 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2019 with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide pending representation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of order. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 23.09.2020 rejected the representation made by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are appointed as Recovery Agents for a period of six months in each calender year and that their posts are temporary in nature.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a direction was issued in WPS No.9520 of 2019 to consider the length of service and recommendation made by the State Government but respondent No.1 failed to consider said direction. He would further submit that the petitioners are working since 20 years as Recovery Agents against vacant posts and they are entitled for regularization in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo Vs.Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. He would pray to set aside the order dated 23.09.2020 vide Annexure P/6.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla. He would submit that the post of Recovery Agent was created under the provision of Chhattisgarh Book of Financial Rights (Part-II), 1995 Serial No.6, Clause-18, (for short ‘the Rules of 1995’), wherein, it is said that appointment would be temporary in nature. He would further submit that the appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners would clearly show that they were appointed for a period of six months in a calender year and their appointments were temporary in nature. Mr. Pandey would submit that there was no sanctioned and vacant post against which the petitioners were appointed, therefore, they cannot claim regularization. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Recovery Agents pursuant to the Rules of 1995; however, the said Rules do not provide for vacant posts. The appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners would further reveal that they were appointed for a period of six months in a calender year to recover the land revenue in a particular district and their appointments are part-time and temporary in nature.

8. The Hon’