Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24684
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Vidyanand Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3879 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pranoti Das, Goutam Khetrapal
For the Respondents: Sharad Mishra
An administrative authority cannot reject a claim for regularization based on findings that contradict a final and unchallenged judicial award from a Labour Court regarding the employee's service and permanency.
Headnote:(A) Regularization of Service - Conflict between Administrative Order and Judicial Finding - Where a Labour Court has recorded a final finding on the nature of employment and permanency which has attained finality, the competent authority cannot reject a regularization claim based on findings contrary to the judicial award. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the regularization authority can ignore a final and unchallenged finding of the Labour Court regarding the petitioner's employment status and permanency.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the rejection of regularization based on contradictory findings between administrative and judicial authorities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. primacy of a final and unchallenged labour court award over subsequent contrary administrative findings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. remittal of the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Para 6 , 7) |
(Single Bench)
Order on Board
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure P-1) by which the petitioner’s representation for regularization has been rejected finding no merit.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the competent authority is contrary to the finding recoded by the Labour Court, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submit that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously.
5. By an award dated 01.03.2014, the Labour Court has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner had worked for 10 years against a vacant post and from 01.12.1990 to 28.02.2000, he had continuously worked and he had attained permanency also. The said finding has attained finality, as it has not been challenged by the State by filing writ petition before this Court. However, while considering the application’s application for regularization, the competent authority has recorded a finding that the petitioner had not worked against a sanctioned post and, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization, which is contrary to the finding recorded by the Labour Court.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.08.2020 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Divisional Forest Officer, Janjgir-Champa, for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim for regularization, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
