Teras vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2175 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                         Writ Petition (S) No. 4817 of 2021

   1. Teras S/o Hirau, Aged About 49 Years R/o Aamgaon, Post Rampur, P.S.
      Salewara, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
   2. Jagannath S/o Mehatar, Aged About 47 Years R/o Aamgaon, Post
      Rampur, P.S. Salewara, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon
      Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
   3. Meghnath, S/o Mehatar, Aged About 56 Years R/o Aamgaon, Post
      Rampur, P.S. Salewara, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon
      Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
   4. Premlal, S/o Suman Singh, Aged About 48 Years R/o Aamgaon, Post
      Rampur, P.S. Salewara,tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department,
      Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Works
      Division, Durg Division.
   3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Works Division,
      Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ---Respondents
      For Petitioners              :     Shri C Jayant K Rao, Advocate.
      For State                    :     Shri Suyash Dhar, Panel Lawyer.

                        Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order on Board

06.09.2021.

   1. The claim of the petitioners through the present writ petition is for an

      appropriate direction to the respondents for considering their claim for

      regularization in service.

   2. Facts

of the case is that the petitioners were working under the Public

Works Department, Durg Division, Durg and were initially engaged in the

year, 1987, however, after having put in about 9 years of service they were

discontinued on 27.04.1996. The workers thereafter raised a claim under

the provisions of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act before the Labour

Court and where the Labour Court vide order dated 31.10.2007 ordered

for reinstatement without backwages. The order of the Labour Court was

subjected to challenge in an appeal before the State Industrial Court and

the Industrial Court also vide order dated 05.08.2010 rejected the appeal

of the State and partly allowed the appeal of the workers to the extent of

modifying the order of Labour Court so far as grant of backwages is

concerned and awarded 50 percent of backwages.

3. The order of the Labour Court dated 31.10.2007 and the order of the

Industrial Court dated 05.08.2010 was later on subjected challenge in a

writ petition preferred by the State Govt. vide WPL No.4771 of 2011. The

said writ petition was finally partly allowed by this court on 08.01.2021. The

order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court and the Industrial

Court was not interfered with however awarding of backwages was

interfered with and quashed by this court vide the said judgment. The

petitioners meanwhile were taken back in service after the order of the

Labour court and since then they are continue in service. Thereafter the

petitioners have now raised the claim for regularization.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that while considering the claim of the

petitioners for regularization the respondent authorities should take into

consideration the order passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in

a bunch of writ petition which were disposed of on 16.05.2017, leading

case of which was WPS No.1703 of 2015, Tukaram Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others. In case of Tukaram (Supra) this court had

categorically held that the period which was spent on litigation before the

court or any other forum, the same has to be treated as period spent on

duty for all practical purposes as the order of discontinuance have been

held to be an illegal order of termination and applying the said analogy the

counsel for the petitioners prays that the respondents be directed to

consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization keeping in view the

judgment of Division Bench in Tukaram (Supra).

5. Considering the limited grievance that the petitioners have, the writ petition

at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent authorities to

consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with

rules and regulations governing the field and while taking a decision, the

respondents shall also keep in mind the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of this High Court in case of Tukaram (Surpa).

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder