Chattisgarh High Court
Rath Ram Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2025
1/5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5900 of 2021
1 - Rath Ram Patel S/o Bhagau Ram Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And
Post - Pisid, Police Station - Kasdole, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi Atal Nagar Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Godawari
Kachhar Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division (Constuction) Kasdol,
District-Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Division, Kasdol Tahsil And P.S. -
Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Azka Alam, Advocate holding the brief
of Mr.Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
07.08.2025
(1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the
respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for
regularization of his services.
(2) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee prior to 1988 in the
Water Resources Department. She would further submit that the
petitioner approached the learned Labor Court against the order of
retrenchment and for regularization of his services and an order was
passed in his favour on 03.01.2003. She would also submit that the
order dated 03.01.2003 was challenged by the State before the
Industrial Court and the order was maintained by the Industrial Court
on 29.11.2004. She would contend that the orders dated 29.11.2004 &
03.01.2003 were challenged before this Court by filing WP(L) No.
6422 of 2007 and the award dated 03.01.2003 & 29.11.2004 were
maintained vide order dated 08.01.2018. She would argue that the
respondent-department has regularized services of similarly situated
daily-rated employees but the claim of the petitioner has not been
considered. In support thereof, she placed reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman
Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR Online 2023 SC 854.
(3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that posts were
not available, therefore, services of the petitioner could not be
regularized. He further submits that Clause 4 of the circular dated
05.03.2008 stipulates that as a one-time measure, proceeding for
regularization can be initiated. He contends that as a one-time
measure, a proceeding was initiated for regularization but the names
of the petitioners could not be considered on account of (i) the non-
availability of sanctioned posts and (ii) their services were not
required. He further contends that the petitioners were found not fit for
regularization and their claim was turned down vide order dated
10.04.2019.
(4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents /
material available on record.
(5) Perusal of the order dated 10.04.2019 would show that the claim of
daily-rated employees for regularization was considered as a one-time
measure. It further states that since posts are not available and there
was no need for daily-rated employees, therefore, the claim of the peti-
tioners was turned down.
A perusal of the circular dated 05.03.2008 indicates that this
circular is in two parts. The first part deals with the regularization of
services of daily-rated employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and
the second part deals with the regularization of daily-rated employees
appointed from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997.
(6) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and the
respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the
petitioner according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008
which says that "the employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 would
be appointed against posts of work-charged and contingency paid
employees or as regular employees in the department ." It further says
that "if posts are not available, supernumerary posts will be created ."
The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that
posts are not vacant. It appears that the authority concerned rejected
the claim of the petitioner according to the second part of the circular
dated 05.03.2008; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent
authorities with regard to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for
regularization appears to be erroneous. It is stated in the return filed by
the State that the services of some of the daily-rated employees were
regularized. The respondents in their return have not assigned reasons
as to why the claim of the petitioner for regularization was not
considered, whereas the claim of some daily-rated employees was
considered by the respondent authorities.
(7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra) in
paras 10 and 11 while dealing with a similar issue held as under:-
10. We are not inclined to accept the submission on
behalf of the respondents. When the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that
65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of
regularizing the services of only 35 employees and
not regularizing the services employees, including the
appellants, discriminatory and violative of Article
Constitution of India. is 14 of other patently of the
11. In that view of the matter, we find that the High
Court was in error in not entertaining the contempt
petition. However, at this stage, relegating the
appellants again to the High Court would
unnecessarily cause delay in delivering justice to the
appellants.
(8) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra), it is
quite vivid that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the order
dated 10.04.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The
respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for regularization in light of the (i) observations made
hereinabove and (ii) according to the first part of the circular dated
05.03.2008.
The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent
authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(9) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE
Rekha
