SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 13899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANIRAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/2167/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:10709

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2167 of 2026

1 - Maniram S/o Fekuram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kalcha, Post Jamdih,

Udaypur, District Surguja (C.G.)

2 - Shrawan Kumar S/o Ratan Das Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Baijnathpur,

District Surajpur (C.G.)

... Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Public Work Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department, Sirpur Bhavan, Raipur, District

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Chief Engineer Public Work Department Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja

(C.G.)

4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department Circle Ambikapur, District

Surguja (C.G.)

5 - Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Bha/sadak Division Surajpur,

District Surajpur (C.G.)

6 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Work Department (B And R) Sub Division Surajpur,

District Surajpur (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate

##PAGE2##

2

For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

02/03 /2026

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

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue direction for respondent authorities

for considered the name of petitions for

regularization since after completion of 10 years of

service.

10.2 That, other relief which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper also, kindly be granted to

the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Petitioner No. 1 is

working on the post of Care Taker and was initially appointed as a daily-

wage employee on 01.02.2015 and the Petitioner No. 2 is working on the

post of Labourer and was also initially appointed as daily-wage employee

on 01.04.2015 with the respondent department. He contended that the

petitioners are working since last about more than 10 years on the said

post and they have made several oral requests to the authorities for

regularization of their services, however, till date, the respondent

authorities have not considered the claim of petitioners for regularizing

their services and therefore, he prays that direction be issued to the

Respondent No. 1 to consider the claim of petitioners for regularization of

their services. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the

decision of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and

Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in the decision passed by this

Court in WP (S) No. 2429/2025 ‘Dinesh Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

& Ors. and other connected matters’ decided on 11.04.2025.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would

submit that perusal of the writ petition would show that the present

##PAGE3##

3

petitioners have not submitted any representation before the respondent

authorities raising their grievance as raised in this writ petition and

therefore, if the petitioners submit a detailed representation before the

concerned authorities, it will be considered and decided in accordance

with law.

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 they are

continuously in employment since last about more than 10 years with the

Respondents/State. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary,

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top