Lekhbai Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3828 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Lekhbai Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2025

                                                           1




                                                                         2025:CGHC:17854


                                                                                     NAFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA
                             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2025.04.22
14:37:00 +0530

                                               WPS No. 2632 of 2025


                   1 - Lekhbai Sahu W/o Nanhelal Sahu Aged About 50 Years Working As
                   Pharmacy Servant, R/o Kosrangi, District- Raipur, C.G.
                   2 - Leela Bai Sinha D/o Derha Ram Sinha Aged About 47 Years Working As
                   Pharmacy Servant, R/o Ward No. 6, Gram Mongrapali, Mahasamund, District-
                   Mahasamund, C.G.
                   3 - Benimadhavdas Vaishnav S/o Ramsharan Das Aged About 52 Years
                   Working Pharmacy Servant, R/o Ward No. 15 Sukul Dalhan, Dhangon,
                   District- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
                   4 - Durga Prasad Dewangan S/o Lt. Shri Rameshwar Dewangan Aged About
                   55 Years Working As Pharmacy Servant, R/o Ward No. 10, Bramhan Para,
                   Tekari, District- Raipur, C.G.
                   5 - Riman Soni W/o Munna Lal Soni Aged About 60 Years Working Pharmacy
                   Servant, R/o Ward No. 03, Belar, District- Gariyaband, C.G.
                   6 - Jharna Sahu W/o Kashi Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 12
                   Lohjhar, District- Gariyaband, C.G.
                                                                                 Petitioner(s)


                                                         versus


                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Yoga
                   And Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Indravati Bhawan,
                   Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
                                          2

2 - District Ayush Officer Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
3 - District Ayush Officer Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, C.G.
4 - District Ayush Officer Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G.
5 - District Ayush Officer Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, C.G.
                                                                   Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 21/04/2025

1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards

the respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners on

the post of Dispensary Servant/ 4th Class Employee pursuant to the

circular dated 05.03.2008 from the date when the similarly situated

persons have been regularized.

2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioners are presently

working on the post of Dispensary Servant in department of respondent

as daily wager and has completed more than two decades. The

petitioners are having all the requisite qualifications for holding the said

post. The petitioners had submitted detailed representation to the

respondent authorities for considering of their case for regular

appointment as they had already completed more than two decades.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of

the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature

and also violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15

& 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are daily wagers since

long. He would further submit that the State government has regularized

the services of similarly situated daily wage employees on the basis of

circular dated 05/03/2008, therefore, the petitioners are also entitle for

regularization of their services on the post of Dispensary Servant. In

support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment

passed by this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State

of Chhattisgarh1

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the

contention of the counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and

Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others2 held in para 11 as under:

"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc."

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition

2 Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (decided on 01/08/2018)

is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records

of others similarly situated employees when their services were

regularized. If the case of the petitioners is also found to be similar to

those daily wagers whose services were regularized, their services be

also regularized from the same date. It is also directed that all this

exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt

of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

Rahul