The state, as a model employer, cannot use contractual or temporary nomenclature to indefinitely deny regularization to long-serving employees performing perennial duties. Such exclusionary practices are arbitrary and violate constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness, requiring meaningful consideration of the employees' claims for permanent status.

ORDER ON BOARD

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to take policy decision for conversion of part time sweeper like petitioners as full time sweeper, within stipulated time.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation filed by the petitioners through their Union namely Chhattisgarh Ayush Safai Karamchari Kalyan Sangh.

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners are working as Part-Time Sweeper under Respondent-department since 1992. According to respondents, the order of regularization of petitioners could not be passed because of extra financial burden upon the State. She submits that the matter is pending before the Finance Department for financial approval with regard to the payment of salary to be paid to employees like petitioners after their regularization. She contended that the petitioners have submitted representation dated 08.09.2025 through their union before the Secretary, Department of Medical Education (Ayush), Raipur with a prayer for regularizing their services and therefore, direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation submitted by their union, expeditiously within specified time frame.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and are only seeking direction to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the representation dated 08.09.2025 submitted by the petitioners through their union, 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 petitioners as projected in this writ petition is that they are continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S ecretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 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 be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed,