Chattisgarh High Court
Ranjan Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1018 of 2021
• Ranjan Das S/o Shri Jagnudas Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Baghimar,
Post- Lagra, Tahsil- Lormi, Police Station- Fastarpur, District-Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Forest, Mantralaya,
Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle Jharabhata Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3. Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division- Mungeli, District- Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
4. Forest Range Officer Forest Range- Khudia, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For petitioner : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vaibhav Singh, PL.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.
Order on Board
(29-08-2022)
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition assailing the order dated 20-04-
2020 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner's claim for regularization
has been denied by the respondent authority on the count that he has not
completed the requisite service as provided in the circular dated 05-03-
2008.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is
working as daily wager from 1985 to 1995 in the office of Forest Range
officer, Forest Range Khudia, District Mungeli. The services of the
petitioner were terminated in the year 1998 but after 16 years he has
raised an industrial dispute on 03-12-2014 which was subsequently
registered before the Labour Court as Reference Case No.
18/DA/2014. Learned Labour Court Bilaspur, vide its award dated 12-
02-2018 directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back-wages.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for regularization
and the same was rejected by the respondent authority vide order
dated 20-05-2019. Therefore, he has filed the writ petition before this
Court which is registered as WPS No. 5082 of 2019. This Court vide
order dated 15-07-2019 has disposed of the writ petition and passed
the following order.
"5. Given the said facts, this Court is of the
opinion that the findings of the respondent No.
3 dated 20-05-2019 so far as it pertains to
petitioner is concerned, is not sustainable. The
same is liable to be and is accordingly set
aside. The matter stands remitted back to the
respondent No. 3 to reconsider the case of the
petitioner accepting the petitioner to have
worked with the department between 1985 to
1995 as is the finding of the Labour Court in its
award dated 12-02-2018 so far as petitioner is
concerned.
"6. Needless to mention that since the
petitioner after 1995 or 1998 as the case may
be, did not raise dispute before the Labour
Court till 2014, the intervening period i.e. from
the date of discontinuance till the petitioner
filed the case before the Labour Court, the
same would not be treated as period spent on
duty. Leaving aside that intervening period,
treating other period to have worked as in
service, the respondents may take a fresh
decision so far as the claim of petitioner for
regularization is concerned at the earliest
preferably within a period of 4 months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order".
3. Again the case of the petitioner was re-examined by the respondent
authority and by the impugned order dated 20-04-2021 again it has
been rejected on the count that petitioner has not completed requisite
service of 10 years as provided in the circular dated 05-03-2008.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that finding recorded
by the respondent that he has not completed 10 years of service is
contrary to law and facts as the petitioner has worked from 1985 to
1995, therefore, he has completed full 10 years of service, as such
the finding recorded by the respondent by rejecting the
representation of petitioner is erroneous finding and deserves to be
set aside. He would further submit that the respondents may be
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In
support of his arguments he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others
versus State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2018(2) SCC 472.
and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and
others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.
5. On the other hand Learned State Counsel opposing the submissions
made by Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that since the
petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as provided in
circular dated 05-03-2008, therefore, the order passed by the
authority is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by
this Court.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record
with utmost satisfaction.
7. Before deciding the controversy it is expedient for this Court to extract
the Circular dated 05-03-2008 issued by the Government of
Chhattisgarh which reads as under.
"NRRkhlx<+ 'kklu
lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx
ea=ky;
nkÅ dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj
dz- ,Q 12&[email protected]@1&3 jk;iqj] fnukad 05 ekpZ] 2008
izfr]
'kklu ds leLr foHkkx]
v/;{k] NRrhlx<+ jktLo e.My fcykliqj]
leLr foHkkxk/;{k
leLr dysDVlZ]
Nrrhlx<+A
fo"k; %& nSfud osru ij vFkok rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh
deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;fefrdj.k ckcr~A
¼v½ fnukad 31-12-1988 ds iwoZ ds nSfud osru [email protected] fu;qDr
deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;fefrdj.k ckcr~A
jkT; 'kklu }kjk fnukad 31-12-1988 ds iwoZ fu;qDr mijksDr Js.kh ds
deZpkfj;ksa ds fu;fefrdj.k ds fy;s ifji= dz- [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]
fnukad 9 tuojh 1990 rFkk ckn esa Hkh ;ksX; funsZ'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s gSA lqyHk
lanHkZ gsrq izfr;ka layXu GSA mDr ifji=ksa vuqlkj fnukad 31-12-1988 rd ds nSfud
osru Hkksxh vFkok rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fer djus ds laca/k esa
Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd deZpkfj;ksa ,oa vkdfLedrk lsok esa inksa dh O;oLFkk ugha gS
rks mUgsa fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fu;qfDr nh tk; vkSj fu;fer LFkkiuk esa in miyC/k u
gks vko';drkuqlkj vfrfjDr vfrfjDr in l`ftr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dh
tk;A vr% fnukad 31-12-1988 rd ds nSfud osru [email protected] deZpkfj;ksa dh
fu;fer djus ds laca/k esa mDr ifji=ksa esa fn;s x;s izko/kku vuqlkj fu;fefrdj.k
dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;A
;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vc dk;Z foHkkxksa esa dk;Zjr [email protected]
Hkh fu;fefrdj.k dh ifjf/k esa vkosaxsA
¼c½ fnukad 01-01-1980 ls fnukad 31-12-1997 rd dh vof/k esa fu;qDr nSfud
osru [email protected] rnFkZ fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;fefrdj.k
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk lfpo dukZVd jkT; ,oa vU; fo:)
m"kknsoh ,oa vU; ¼2006½ 4 ,l-lh-lh- ds izdj.k esa fnukad 10-04-2006 dks vkns'k
ikfjr dj ;g lkekU; funsZ'k fn;k gS fd dsoy ,d [email protected],d le; ds fy;s 10
o"kksZa ;k vf/kd le; ls fu;ekuqlkj Lohd`r inksa ij yxkrkj dk;Zjr nSfud osru
[email protected]@vLFkkbZ deZpkfj;ksa dh vfu;fer fu;qfDr ¼ IRREGULAR
APPOINTMENTS½ dks fu;fer djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg,A
[email protected] mijksDr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa jkT;
'kklu }kjk lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj dj nSfud osru [email protected] rnFkZ :i esa fu;qDr
deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fefrdj.k dh izfdz;k fuEukuqlkj fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%&
¼i½ O;fDr] [email protected]`r fu;fer in ds fo:) inLFk fd;k x;k gks vkSj
foHkkxh; Hkjrh fu;eksa esa fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ,oa vU; ;ksX;rk,a j[krk gks rks gh
fu;fer djus ;ksX; gSA
¼ii½ nSfud osru ij] rnFkZ :i ls vFkok dysDVj nj ij ¼nSfud osru
ij½ tc fu;qfDr gqbZ rc ls vc rd ml in dh vko';drk jgh gS vkSj vkxs Hkh
ml in dh vko';drk gks rks lacaf/kr in ds fo:) ,sls O;fDr dks inLFk ekurs
gq, fopkj fd;k tk ldsxkA
8. The petitioner has completed 10 years of service from 1985 to 1995
but he has not completed the 10 years of service from 01-01-1989 to
31-12-1999 which is paramount consideration for regularization of
service of the petitioner and this fact is not in dispute as the petitioner
has raised the dispute after lapse of 16 years from the date of his
termination in the year 1998. In the evidence adduced before the
Labour Court he has stated that he has worked from 1985 to 1995 but
neither he has pleaded before the Labour Court that he has worked
from 1995-97 nor there is any material placed by the petitioner
establish that he has worked from 1995-97 before the respondent
also. In absence of any material this Court cannot record the finding
that the petitioner has worked from 1995-97 and it cannot be said
that the finding recorded by the authority that the petitioner has not
completed 10 years of service prior to 31-12-1997 is erroneous finding
of fact.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka
and others versus Uma Devi (supra) has held in paragraph 53 which
reads as under.
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V.
NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA
(supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and
referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified
persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have
been made and the employees have continued to
work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The
question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in
the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases above referred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularize as a one time
measure, the services of such irregularly appointed,
who have worked for ten years or more in duly
sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of
courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up,
in cases where temporary employees or daily
wagers are being now employed. The process must
be set in motion within six months from this date.
We also clarify that regularization, if any already
made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no
further by-passing of the constitutional requirement
and regularizing or making permanent, those not
duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme".
10. Even the Circular was issued in pursuance of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary and State of
Karnataka versus Uma Devi (supra) and in paragraph 53 of the
judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to frame one time of
scheme and in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court the State has issued this Circular on 05-03-2008,
therefore, this Court cannot relax any condition which has been set
by the respondent while regularizing the service of daily wagers
working in the Government. As such, there is no perversity or
illegality in the impugned order warranting any interference by this
Court.
11. Accordingly this writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JUDGE
Raju
