Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Saroj Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:19879
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1275 of 2018
1 - Smt. Saroj Singh W/o Shri Roop Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o
Mahamaya Vihar, Warehouse Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Secretariat,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station, Post Rakhi Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute, Koni, Bilaspur,
Tahsil, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Koni, Bilaspur, Tahsil, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6343 of 2018
1 - Lakhram Rajput S/o Late Ram Nath Aged About 43 Years R/o Mukam,
Mukam Post, Navagaon Mungeli (Tah. And District) Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Skill Development Technical Education And Employment, Secretariat,
Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi Naya Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Employment And Training.
2
3 - Training Superintendent, Iti, Akaltara, Akaltara Po, Jangjir Champa District
Chhattisgarh State., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
With
WPS No. 6347 of 2018
1 - Kanchan Kumar Verma S/o Mohan Lal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o
Ramayan Nagar, ITI Gate, Koni, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Skill Development Technical Education And Employment, Secretariat,
Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Employment And Training
3 - Training Superintendent I T I Akaltara, Akaltara Post Office, Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
With
WPS No. 6880 of 2018
1 - Ramniwas Kurre S/o Shri Ramdayal Kurrey Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Chisda, Post Pendri Via- Birra, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Skill Development Technical Education And Employment , Secretariat,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi Naya Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh..
3 - Joint Director Office Of The Directorate, Saddu, By The Side Of Govt. I T
I, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Principal Govt. Industrial Training Institute Bhatgaon, Post Bilaigarh,
District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
With
3
WPS No. 6964 of 2018
1 - Dhananjay Tandel S/o Shri Jagannathiya Tandel Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Pipardula, Post Bhinodi (Sarsiwa), Tahsil Bilaigarh, District
Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Skill Development Technical Education And Employment, Secretariat,
Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Director, Office Of The Directorate, Saddu By The Side Of Govt. Iti,
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Principal Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Bhatgaon, Post Bilaigarh,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate along with Dr.
Veena Nair, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
01.05.2025
1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other writ or orders or directions to the
respondents to regularize the petitioners in service against the
sanctioned vacant post of Training Officer which the
petitioners have been appointed to in the years 2009-10 with
all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and
seniority.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
Respondent authorities to pay the salary and allowances to the
petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,500 with all
allowances as are paid to serving regular Training Officer,
with other consequential benefits including arrears.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities not to make any break in petitioners'
service on completion of the present contractual appointment
and also to continue them in service till these petitions are
finally decided by this Hon'ble Court.
10.4 To issue any other appropriate orders or directions to the
respondents in the interest of justice in favor of the
petitioners."
2. The details of the WP(S) numbers, the date of the advertisement, posts
to which they were appointed, their qualifications and the date of their
joining are given in the tabular form as under:-
Case No. Name of the Apptt Trade Qualifications
petitioner Order No.
& Date
WP(S) Smt. Saroj No.4279 Cutting & 10th + ITI
No.1275 of Singh 28/5/2010 Tailoring
WP(S) Lakhram No.4279 Diesel ITI Mech.
No.6343 of Rajput 28/5/2009 Mech.
WP(S) Kanchan No.4279 Fitter ITI
No.6347 of Kumar Verma 28/5/2009
WP(S) Ramniwas No.647 Electrical 10th + ITI
No.6880 of Kurrey 1/2/2010
WP(S) Dhananjay No.4279 Fitter ITI
No.6964 of Tandel 28/5/2009
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners
were initially selected and appointed as Guest Lecturers on a temporary
basis in the Industrial Training Institutes. Thereafter, the respondents
issued an advertisement; the petitioners participated in the recruitment
process and were selected and appointed as Training Officers on the
salary of Rs.2,750/-, Rs.4,500/- & Rs.7,200/- per month, respectively.
He would further submit that according to one of the conditions of the
appointment order, the services of the petitioners would be governed by
the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004.
He would also submit that the petitioners were appointed on contract to
the post of Training Officers, and their services were extended from
time to time. It is contended that whenever there was a delay in the
renewal of the contract appointment, the Training Officers were
appointed as Guest Lecturer at a lower salary. He would further argue
that the petitioners continued for more than 10 years under the
respondents. He would also argue that this Hon'ble Court in its
judgment dated 19/2/2025 rendered in WPS No.6234/2023 and other
connected petitions, held that the procedural formalities cannot be used
to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment
was termed temporary but who has, for a considerable period,
performed the same duties as those performed by a regular employee.
He would contend that the petitioners have become over-aged and are
now ineligible to apply for or secure alternative employment. They
continue to serve either as Contract Training Officers or as Guest
Lecturers facing artificial breaks in designation and without being
regularized in service, despite the fact that:-
(i) there existed a sanctioned vacant post; and
(ii) there was a continuous need for imparting skill development education
to the students.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would further state that the
petitioners have no equal bargaining power and, therefore, compelled to
accept the terms of the appointment as offered by the respondent
authorities. He would lastly submit that a direction may be issued to the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. In support of his
arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Jivanlal vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal
Secretary and Others, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 747, Jaggo vs. Union
of India & Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Vinod
Kumar vs. UOI, reported in 2024 (9) SCC 327.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. She would submit
that the petitioners were appointed on contract and have no vested right
to claim regularization. She would contend that the appointments were
made according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004 and that the services of the
petitioners were extended from time to time based on the evaluation of
their performance. She would also submit that the Rules, 2004 have
been repealed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Samvida Niyukti)
Rules, 2012. According to Rule 11(4) of the Rules, 2012, the services of
the petitioners were liable to be automatically terminated on the expiry
of the contractual period. She would argue that the petitioners cannot
claim regularization in contravention of the terms and conditions
stipulated in their appointment orders. Accordingly, she would contend
that these petitions may be dismissed.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the
record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra) has
considered the case of the employees for regularization and has passed
the following order, which reads as under:-
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra)
does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long
years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the
State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent
backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were
not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions
for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane
resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and
unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a
regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-
hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In
a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs.
Union of India & Ors., it was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an
employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has
performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee
over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.
The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by
the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at
hand, given the specific circumstances under which the
appellants were employed and have continued their
service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the
outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was based
on a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection process
involving written tests and interviews, which
distinguishes their case from the appointments through
back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi
(supra).
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of
considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230
even if were not made strictly in accordance with the
prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have
been made illegally if they had followed the procedures
of regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of
the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken
after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels
and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term
service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or
illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing
regularization simply because their original terms did not
explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly
introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as
exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private
sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack
of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have
been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the
gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode
public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted
forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary
contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs,
they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term
obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several
ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for
work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or
"contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to,
despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently
dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find
themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in
their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort
to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively
replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a
deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are
often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund,
health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their
families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the
practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are
often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of
long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically
held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more
than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-
time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is
being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases
where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments
often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no
vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This selective application
distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing
it against employees who have rendered indispensable services
over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative
for government departments to lead by example in providing fair
and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis
for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes international
labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal
challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international standards and
sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country."
7. A perusal of the documents would show that the petitioners were
appointed on the post of Cutting & Tailoring, Electrical, Diesel Mech. &
Fitter in the year 2009 & 2010, respectively. The petitioners have been
discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of the departmental
authorities and have continued to work with the respondents for over 10
years under bona fide and legitimate expectations of being regularized,
particularly in light of the circular dated 5.3.2008 and the observations
made by this Court in various rounds of litigation under the writ and
contempt jurisdictions.
8. Given the aforesaid facts and considering the aspects that the claim of
the petitioners till date has not been considered and finalized by the
respondent authorities, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to obtain necessary instructions at the earliest, ensuring
consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization keeping in
view the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 and the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo
(supra).
9. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, these petitions are
disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make
representation(s) before the concerned authorities within a period of 30
days and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide the
same within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these petitions are
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
