Chattisgarh High Court
Sunil Kumar Khandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:12539
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 9263 of 2022
1 - Sunil Kumar Khandey S/o Late Shri Harakh Lal Khandey Aged About 50
Years Working As Driver (On Collector Rate As Daily Wager Employee) At
RAHUL Office Of Collector ( Food Branch ), District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
JHA
Digitally signed by
RAHUL JHA Petitioner(s)
Date: 2025.03.18
10:33:11 +0530
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Food ( Food
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Directorate, Atal
Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Collector (Food) (Being A Court Of Collector District - Koriya Baikunthpur
(C.G.) ), Office Of Collector Koriya District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Food Officer, Office Of Collector Food Branch Koriya District - Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy. GA
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
17/03/2025
1. Challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the order dated 13/10/2022
(Annexure-P/12) passed by respondent No.3/Collector, Koriya
Baikunthpur (C.G.), whereby respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of
the petitioner in respect of his regularization on completion of 10 years
of service.
2. (i) Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently
working on the post of Driver in department of respondent no. 03 and 04
as daily wager and has completed more than 17 year of continuous
service. The petitioner having all the requisite qualifications for holding
the post of driver i.e. having 10 th pass and driving license. Prior to
working in the Department of respondent no. 3 and 4, the petitioner had
already worked in the office of Assistant Project officer District Rural
Development Agency of State Government at Ambikapur and
Baikunthpur (Now called the Drastic Panchayat) since March 1990 till
February 2000 to the post of Driver under the work charged as
temporary basis.
(ii) According to the petitioner, one post of driver at office of the
respondent no 3 and 4 i.e. office of Collector Food Department Dist-
Koriya C.G. is sanctioned and is still lying vacant since 2005. Against
the said sanctioned and vacant post of driver vide order date 30-09-2005,
the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Driver for the period
of 89 days (i.e. from 15-09-2005 till 13-12-2005) on collector rate as
daily wager. It is pertinent to mention here that said service period of the
petitioner has regularly extended from time to time with artificial break
of one day in service and since then he is continuously working on the
said post as Daily Wages Employee and he has completed more than
about 17 years of service as a daily wager. The petitioner is working
against the said vacant post, since 2005 till date and the salary has also
been drawn by the petitioner against the said vacant post. The petitioner
had submitted his detailed representation to the respondent authorities
for considering his case for regular appointment on the post of Driver as
he had already completed 10 years of service, however, when the same
was not decided, the petitioner again submitted a representation along
with copy of order dated 13/06/2022, instead of considering the claim of
the petitioner for his regularization on administrative side, respondent
No. 3 being Court of Collector registered the representation/case of the
petitioner as Revenue Case No. 202209010100006/B-121/2021-22 and
passed the order impugned in illegal and arbitrary manner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is a daily wager 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 petitioner is also entitled for
regularization of his services on the post of Driver. 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 and submits that since the
petitioner has not been engaged with the present department prior to
31/12/1997, he is not at all entitled for regularization as per circular
dated 05/03/2008.
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. In the present case, the respondent authorities in the impugned order
(Annexure P/12) have written in the second last paragraph that the
petitioner was working since 15/09/2005, so at the time of passing the
impugned order, the petitioner had completed 10 years of service but
they did not regularize his services. Therefore, it is clear from all the
documents that the respondent authorities did not follow the aforesaid
2 Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (decided on 01/08/2018)
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the matter of
regularization of services of the petitioner.
8. 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
is allowed and the impugned order dated 13/10/2022 (Annexure P/12) is
hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to again inspect
the muster roll and all records when the services of other daily wagers
were regularized. If the case of the petitioner is also found to be similar
to those daily wagers whose services were regularized, his services be
also regularized from the same date with all consequential benefits. 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
