##PAGE1##

Digitally

signed by

YOGESH

YOGESH TIWARI

TIWARI Date:

2026.03.09 1

17:18:04

+0530

2026:CGHC:10841

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 5411 of 2023

1 - Melaram Yadav S/o Purshottam Yadav, Aged About 46 Years R/o

Village Kohlatola, Tehsil Chhuikhandan, District Rajnandgaon, Now District

Khairagarh Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh.

2 - Santram Yadav S/o Manbodhi, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village

Kohlatola, Tehsil Chhuikhandan, District Rajnandgaon, Now District

Khairagarh Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh.

3 - Mahendra Chandel S/o Biharilal Chandel, Aged About 49 Years R/o

Village Kohlatola, Tehsil Chhuikhandan, District Rajnandgaon, Now District

Khairagarh Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh.

4 - Ubhayram S/o Hemuram Chandel, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village

Kohlatola, Tehsil Chhuikhandan, District Rajnandgaon, Now District

Khairagarh Chhuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioners

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource

Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division Chhuikhadan, District

Rajnandgaon, New District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan- Gandai

Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate on behalf of

Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate

For State/Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate

General

2

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

02.03.2026

1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioners have assailed the inaction and arbitrary

conduct of the respondent authorities in not regularizing their

services despite long and continuous discharge of duties against

sanctioned posts, and despite fulfillment of all requisite eligibility

conditions. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

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

pleased to allow the writ petition and be

pleased to direct the respondents to regularize

the service of the petitioners forthwith.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

call for the records for its kind perusal which

relates to petitioner's matter.

10.3 Any other relief/relief's which may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case may also be allowed.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were

initially appointed on 03.05.1994 as daily wage employees under the

respondent department and had been continuously discharging their

duties for several years. It is submitted that though the services of

the petitioners were illegally terminated on 30.08.2008, the said

action was set aside by the competent Labour Court at

Rajnandgaon, which vide award dated 31.05.2014 directed

reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service. Pursuant

3

thereto, the petitioners were reinstated and are continuing in service

till date. Thus, the petitioners have completed more than the

requisite period of service and are entitled to the benefit of

regularization in terms of the State Government circular dated

05.03.2008.

3. Learned counsel further submits that in light of the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v.

Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the State Government itself issued

the circular dated 05.03.2008 providing for regularization of daily

wage employees who had completed ten years of service as on the

cut-off date. It is contended that the petitioners squarely fall within

the ambit of the said circular and similarly situated employees have

already been regularized by the respondent department, yet the

petitioners have been unjustifiably denied the same benefit. It is also

submitted that the issue relating to computation of service in cases

where termination is set aside and reinstatement is ordered has

been duly considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No.

1703/2015, decided on 16.05.2017, wherein it has be