Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Lacchuram Janghel on 26 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:43148-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.26
17:56:23
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 628 of 2025
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Forest, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Hasaud, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter, Jail
Road, Arenya Bhawan, Medical College Road, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
4 - The Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, Durg, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
5 - The Divisional Forest Officer Khairagarh Forest Division,
Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Present District-
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai
2
6 - The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer Khairagarh Sub- Forest Division,
Khairagarh/ Chairman Scrutiny Committee, Khairagarh, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Present District- Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan-Gandai
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Lacchuram Janghel S/o Late Shri Chatiu Ram Aged About 43
Years R/o Village- Gajmarra, Post- Bhothli Thana And Tahsil-
Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
26.08.2025
1. The appellants/respondents in writ petition has filed this writ
appeal assailing the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4073 of 2020, by
which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed
by the respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the writ petitioner in
WPS No. 4073 of 2020 is that the petitioner was initially
appointed as Watchman / Chowkidar on daily wage basis in
the office of Divisional Forest Office Division Khairagarh in the
year 1995, further, he was discontinued as daily wage
employee on 19.11.2006 by oral instruction. Discontinuation
of engagement of petitioner as daily wage employee was
challenged before Labour Court Case by the petitioner and the
same was allowed vide award dated 24.11.2011 and he was
directed to be reinstated in service without back-wages.
Petitioner, thereafter, is continuously working with
respondents. Earlier, petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing
WP.S. No. 105 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated
09.01.2019 directing respondents to consider case of
petitioner for regularization in the light of the award of Labour
Court dated 30.05.2012 as also the order of Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh
which is an order dated 16.05.2017 passed in W.P.S. No. 1703
of 2015. Initially, when claim of petitioner was considered, he
was found eligible for regularization in service upon
assessment by Divisional Forest Officer. When even after
receipt of report, petitioner was not regularized in service, he
filed a contempt petition and only because of filing of
contempt petition against higher officials, subsequently claim
of petitioner was rejected by order dated 26.11.2019 and while
rejecting claim for regularization of petitioner, respondents
have opined that petitioner has not completed ten years of
service and he was not engaged against sanctioned and
vacant post which is contrary to the facts of the case, order of
Labour Court dated 24.11.2011 and further in contravention of
Circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by State Government for
regularization of daily wage/temporary employee working in
the Departments of State Government. Petitioner from the
date of reinstatement is continuously working.
3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has
observed as under:-
" 11. Considering aforementioned facts of the case and
discussion made above as also decision in case of
Tukaram (supra), in the considered opinion of this
Court, respondent No. 5 committed error of law in
rejecting claim of regularization of petitioner which is
not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, order
dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-P/10) is quashed.
12. Undisputedly, petitioner, till date, is continuously
working for the work on which he is engaged as daily
wage employee and therefore, in the aforementioned
facts of the case, respondents are directed to consider
case of petitioner for regularization in accordance with
Circular dated 05.03.2008 granting him advantage of
continuity of service from date of his initial
engagement till date, subject to verifying facts. Let
exercise of regularization be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in above
terms. "
4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ respondent in
writ petitioner with the prayer that the writ petitioner/
respondent herein does not fulfill the requisite eligibility as
provided and accordingly his candidature was rejected which
is just and proper and learned Single Judge has erred by
allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/
respondent herein.
5. Learned counsel for the State/ appellant submits that though
the respondent herein was initially engaged in the year 1995,
however, his services were discontinued in the year 19.11.2006
and as per order Labour Court dated 24.11.2011, he was
reinstated only in the year 2011 and therefore, it cannot be
said that on the date of issuance of Circular dated 05.03.2008,
respondent herein has completed ten years of service. He
further contended that benefit of Circular is to be given only to
the person who were engaged prior to 1997 and have
completed ten years of service. He also contended that
specific reason has been assigned by the competent authority
for not adverting to the claim of respondent herein for
regularization on the ground that he was not engaged against
sanctioned and vacant post. He further submits that case of
the respondent herein was duly verified in terms of circular for
regularization dated 05.03.2008, and it was found that the
respondent do not fulfill the requisite eligibility as provided
and his candidaature was rejected. He further submits that
Learned Single Judge has committed error in granting the
respondent herein the advantage of continuity of service from
date of his initial engagement till date. He further submits that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law
and cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside and the
present appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ
petitioner opposes the submission made and submits that he
was initially engaged in the year 1995 as Watchman/
Chowkidar and was posted at Divisional Forest Office,
Khairagarh and his services were discontinued in the year
2006 by oral order/ instructions. Order of discontinuation of
service was put to challenge before the Labour Court,
Rajnandgaon and application submitted by the respondent
herein was allowed vide order dated 24.11.2011 directing his
reinstatement and accordingly he was reinstated and was
working as daily wage employee till the time of filing of the
writ petition. He further submits that since 2008 the similarly
situated employees have already been regularized without
approaching any court and even in some of the cases they
have been regularized on the strength of orders of the Court.
He further submits that the authorities have constituted the
committee for scrutinizes the eligible daily wages employees
and the petitioner name has found fit for regularization.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available in the record.
8. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ
petition that when there is an order of competent Court for
reinstating service of respondent, he was reinstated, it will
have its effect that respondent continued in service since initial
date of his engagement i.e. from the year 1995 unless
otherwise specified. Further, State Government has issued
Circular dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of service of daily
wage employee / temporary employee and under Clause B, it
is mentioned that regularization of an employee engaged in
between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 as daily wage / temporary
employee. In the said Circular, under Clause 2 (VII) wherein it is
specifically provided that regularization be made against
sanctioned and vacant post and it further mentions that
wherever in the Department it is required, supernumerary
post be created. Clause 2 (VII) is extracted below for ready
reference:
(viii) नियमितिकरण स्वीकृ त एवं रिक्त पद पर ही किया जाएगा। इस
हेतु जिन विभागों में आवश्यक हो वहां सांख्येतर पद निर्मित किये
जायें। यदि पद ही कलेक्टर दर पर स्वीकृ त हो तो स्वीकृ त पदों (दैनिक
वेतन पर) को नियमित वेतनमान में परिवर्तित (सुजित) करना होगा।"
9. While rejecting claim of respondent, Divisional Forest Officer
vide order dated 26.11.2019 erred in rejecting claim of
respondent observing that respondent was discontinued from
service in the year 2006 and he has not continuously worked
for a period of ten years and further that he has not worked
against sanctioned and vacant post said observation / reason
assigned for rejecting claim for regularization of respondent is
contrary to the order passed by Labour Court wherein
respondent has been reinstated which is having effect of
reinstating in service from initial date of his appointment and
further is in contravention of specific Clause under Circular
dated 05.03.2008 as extracted above.
10. Further the Division Bench of this Court while
considering almost identical issue in case of Tukaram (supra)
has observed that the effect of the termination order being set
aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous
employment as if the order of discontinuance never existed. It
was also observed that the litigious worker would be entitled
for continuity of service for the period they were out of
employment while they were litigation before the Labour
Court.
11. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error,
warranting interference of this Court.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to
be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib
