Chattisgarh High Court
Goverdhan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 January, 2025
1/7
2025:CGHC:4903
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4091 of 2020
1 - Goverdhan Sahu S/o Late Mahngu Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And
Post- Chhido, P.S. And Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh),
District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, New
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Hasaud, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh),District:Raipur,Chhattisgarh
2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter, Jail Road, Arenya
Bhavan, Medical College Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh),
District:Durg,Chhattisgarh
4 - The Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh),
District:Durg,Chhattisgarh
5 - The Divisional Forest Officer Khairagarh Forest Division, Khairagarh, District-
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, PL.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
28/01/2025
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following
relief(s):-
"10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be set
Digitally
NISHA signed by aside/quash the impugned order dated 26.11.2019
DUBEY NISHA
DUBEY and further issue a direction to the respondent
authorities for consideration of regularization of the
services fo petitioner on the basis of order dated
16.5.2017.
10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of the cost of the petition may be
given."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed
as Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the office of Divisional Forest Office,
Division - Khairagarh in the year 1995. 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 of petitioner was allowed vide award dated 21.11.2011. 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 W.P.S.No.88 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 21.11.2011 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 impugned order dated 26.11.2019. It is contention of learned
counsel for petitioner that while rejecting claim for regularization of petitioner,
respondents have considered 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 21.11.2011 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. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for
petitioner and would submit that though petitioner was initially engaged in the
year 1995, however, his services were discontinued in the year 2006 and as
per order 21.11.2011, 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,
petitioner has completed ten years of service. She 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. She also contended that
specific reason has been assigned by respondent authorities for not
adverting to the claim of petitioner for regularization on the ground that he
was not engaged against sanctioned and vacant post.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused
documents annexed along with the record.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1995 as
Chowkidar with the respondent and posted at Divisional Forest Office,
Khairagarh, his services were discontinued on 19.11.2006 by oral
order/instruction. Order of discontinuation of service was put to challenge
before Labour Court, Rajnandgaon and application submitted by petitioner
was allowed vide award dated 21.11.2011 directing reinstatement of
petitioner, he was reinstated and as per submission of learned counsel for
petitioner, he is still continuing as daily wage employee and not disputed by
learned State counsel.
6. In the aforementioned facts of the case when there is an order of competent
Court for reinstating service of petitioner, holding that discontinuation of
service of petitioner to be bad in law, he was reinstated, it will have its effect
that petitioner continued in service since initial date of his engagement i.e.
from the year 1995 unless otherwise specified.
7. 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 :
"(vii) fu;fefrdj.k Lohd`r ,oa fjDr in ij gh fd;k tk,xkA bl
gsrq ftu foHkkxksa esa vko';d gks ogka lka[;srj in fufeZr fd;s tk;saA
;fn in gh dysDVj nj ij Lohd`r gks rks Lohd`r inksa ¼nSfud osru
ij½ dks fu;fer osrueku esa ifjofrZr ¼l`ftr½ djuk gksxkA**
8. While rejecting claim of petitioner, Divisional Forest Officer vide Annexure-P/6
dated 26.11.2019 erred in rejecting claim of petitioner observing that
petitioner was discontinued from service in the year 2006 and petitioner 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 petitioner is contrary to the
facts of the case and spirit of order passed by Labour Court wherein
petitioner has been reinstated which is having effect of reinstating in service
with continuity of service from initial date of his appointment and further is in
contravention of specific Clause under Circular dated 05.03.2008 as
extracted above.
9. Division Bench of this Court while considering almost identical issue in case
of Tukaram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in W.P.S. No. 1703 of 2015 and
batch of writ petitions, has observed thus :
" 21. In the landmark decision in the case of Olga Tellis &
Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others, 1985 (3)
SCC 545, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in very categorical
terms dealing with Article 21 and comparing it with the right
to livelihood held that, "The sweep of the right to life
conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. An equally
important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because,
no person can live without the means of living, that is, the
means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as
a part of the constitutional right to live, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him
of his means of livelihood. Right to work is the most precious
liberty that man possesses. It is most precious liberty
because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right
to life thus is a precious freedom. Life means something
more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against
the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties
by which life is enjoyed"
22. Now if we look into the facts of the present case,
undisputedly, by now it has to be accepted that these
workmen were initially appointed on different dates as
mentioned in the aforementioned chart. Perusal of the said
chart would reveal that all the workmen have put in a
considerable period of time from the date of their
appointment before they were discontinued in service and
after the order of the Labour Court which in due course of
time has attained finality they have also been reinstated.
From the date of reinstatement also till date all the workmen
are still working with the Respondents and from the date of
reinstatement also they have put in a considerable period of
time. All these workers have been slogging with the
Respondents with a hope and legitimate expectation of
being regularized one day. Based upon the judgment of
Umadevi (supra), the State of Chhattisgarh also has issued
a circular on 5.3.2008. The object of the said circular also
was for considering the persons who had completed more
than 10 years of service they should be regularized. The
alleged order of termination of service of the daily wage
workers was held to be illegal by the Labour Court. 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. All these
workmen as on date are all middle aged persons and would
not be now in a position for getting a regular employment
elsewhere.
23. Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a
social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008
also being the circular of the State Government issued
keeping in mind the welfare of the poor workers and has
been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people
ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed
on daily wage basis and the post against which these
persons are discharging so as to subserve the common
good that can occur to the workers for the long service
rendered by the respective workmen.
24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the
implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination
being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would
be put in the same position at which they were, but for the
illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy
is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the
workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the
ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for
regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008.
25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the
preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and
circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the
opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of
regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just,
proper and legal.
26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The
question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these
petitions is answered in the affirmative in favour of the
petitioners-workers holding that they would not fall in the
category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled
for continuity of service for the period they were out of
employment while they were litigating before the Labour
Court."
10. Order of Division Bench of this Court was put to challenge by State in S.L.P.
bearing S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No. 35123 of 2017 which came to be dismissed
vide order dated 22.01.2018, which is also not in dispute.
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/6) 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 and keeping in mind clause
2(vii) of circular dated 5.3.2008. 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.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
NIsha
