2026:CGHC:18079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3434 of 2026 • Kirti Kumar Gaygwal S/o. Dhansay Aged About 37 Years R/o. Ma-1342, Devnandan Nagar, Face One, Po- Sarkanda, Mopka, Bilaspur District-

Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

2. Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Through Secretary, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector District- Mungeli (C.G.)

5. Upper Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

6. Executive Engineer Rural Development Division, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

7. Assistant Engineer Rural Development Division, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Department, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

21/04 /2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to PAWAN regularize the service of the petitioner on the KUMAR JHA post being held by him in the light of judgment Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/ relief in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2012 was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-II vide appointment order dated 03.10.2013 issued by Respondent No. 6 and since then he is working on the said post on contractual basis. Petitioner has rendered more than 10 years of continuous service under respondent-department, however, his service has not been regularized. He submits that in view of the Circular of the State Government as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S ecretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services. He contended that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure P-9) before Respondent No. 6 with a prayer for regularizing his services and therefore, direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by petitioner, expeditiously within specified time frame.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking direction to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation dated 31.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner, she is having no objection to the limited prayer.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The grievance of petitioner as projected in this writ petition is that he is continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) considering that the daily-wage employee/temporary employee will not be discriminated to the extent of wages/salary as paid to the regular employees has considered the regularization of employees who have been employed by the employer, their service is not illegal but irregular and is continuous employment since about more than 10 years and observed thus:-

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may b