Phool Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3140 Chatt

                                        -1-


                                                                               NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                        Writ Petition (S) No. 3100 of 2022

   1. Phool Singh S/o Suveshi Singh, Aged About 50 Years Working As Security
      Guard (Daily Wager), Indra Udyan, Pendra, Office of Forest Range Officer,
      Forest Department, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                  ---Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Forest
      Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. - Rakhi Raipur, District : Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh
   2. Divisional Forest Officer, Marwahi Forest Division, Pendra Road, District :
      Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
   3. Forest Range Officer, Office of Forest Range Officer, Pendra, District :
      Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---Respondents

      For Petitioner              :      Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
      For Respondent/State        :      Shri RM Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate.

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

29.04.2022

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an

appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioner for regularization in terms of the policy of the State Govt. dated

05.03.2008.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged

as a daily wage worker and was working as a Guard under the Forest

Department of the respondents since 1992 till 30.12.2008. The petitioner's

services was discontinued thereafter. The discontinuance of the services

of the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court. The

Labour Court Bilaspur passed an award in favour of the petitioner by

reinstating him without backwages, however, with continuity of service vide

award dated 15.02.2013.

3. The award passed by the Labour Court was subjected to challenge before

the High Court by the State Govt. vide WPL No.82 of 2016. The said writ

petition got dismissed by the order of this court dated 28.06.2016 affirming

the order passed by the Labour Court. That, pursuant to the said

judgment, the petitioner stood reinstated in service on 21.08.2017, after

which also the petitioner now has put in more than 5 years of service.

4. According to the petitioner, even before his discontinuance from service in

December, 2008, the petitioner has put in more than 16 years of service.

Further, along with the order of reinstatement the Labour Court has also

granted the petitioner the benefit of continuity of service. Thereby for all

practical purposes the petitioner has to be considered to be in employment

of the respondents continuously from 1992 onwards. Therefore, in the light

of the policy decision of the State Govt. dated 05.03.2008 the petitioner's

claim for regularization has to be considered.

5. It would be relevant at this juncture also to refer to the judgment of the

Division Bench of this High Court in case of Tukaram Sahu Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No.1703 of 2015, decided on 16.05.2017,

whereby it has been held that the intervening period during which the

services of the petitioner was under litigation and there being a

reinstatement order, the entire period which was spent on litigation has to

be treated as period spent on duty. Thus, for all practical purposes the

period during which the petitioner was under litigation i.e. for the period

between December, 2008 to August, 2017, the said period would have to

be treated as period spent on duty with continuity of service, as has been

protected by the Labour Court as well.

6. Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case, considering the

judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in case of Tukaram (Supra)

and also taking note of the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of

the petitioner, the respondents are directed to take a fresh decision in case

of the petitioner so far as his claim for regularization is concerned. While

taking a decision, the respondents shall also take note of the circular of the

State Govt. dated 05.03.2008. Let an appropriate decision be taken within

an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder