Sawant vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2527 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                                NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           WPS No. 5189 of 2021

   1. Sawant S/o Udavan Aged About 41 Years R/o Aamgaon, Post Rampur, P.S.
      Salewara, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), District :
      Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

   2. Gaunu S/o Udavan Aged About 45 Years R/o Aamgaon, Post Rampur, P.S.
      Salewara, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), District :
      Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Public Works Department
      Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District- Raipur
      (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Public Works
      Division, Durg Division, District- Durg (C.G.), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

   3. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Public Works Division,
      Khairagarh, District-     Rajnandgaon      (C.G.),   District : Rajnandgaon,
      Chhattisgarh                                                ---- Respondents




For Petitioner             :       Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate.
For State                  :       Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.


                     Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order On Board
23.09.2021


   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

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

J/-