Chattisgarh High Court
Vishvas Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 September, 2025
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.09.04
11:10:04 +0530
2025:CGHC:44810
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 10254 of 2025
Vishvas Rathore S/o Shri Ramkrishna Rathore Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.
12, Purani Basti, Janjgir, Police Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa
(Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Women And Child Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
2 - Director Women And Child Development Department, Second Floor, Block- A,
Indiravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department District-
Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh)
4 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme, Janjgir, Nawagarh- 2,
Women And Child Development Department District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh)
...Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, PL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
02.09.2025
1. By the present petition, petitioner is seeking a direction towards the
respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of
Computer Operator, pursuant to the Circular dated 05.03.2008 from the date
when the similarly situated persons have been regularized.
2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner is presently working on
the post of Computer Operator in department of respondent as Daily Wage
Wps 10254 of 2025
employee, and has completed more than 10 years of service. Petitioner is
having all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of Computer Operator.
Petitioner had submitted detailed representation to the respondent authorities
for considering his/her case for regular appointment on the post of Computer
Operator, as he/she had already completed more than 10 years of service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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. Petitioner is Daily Wage employee since long. He
would further submit that the State Government has regularized the services of
similarly situated employees on the basis of Circular dated 05.03.2008,
therefore, petitioner is also entitled for regularization of his/her services on the
post of Computer Operator. In support of his contention, learned counsel has
relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar
Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (WPS-4293 of 2012) decided on
10.02.2023.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State would
oppose the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available
on record.
6. Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and others
Vs the State of Jharkhand, and others Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018,
decided on 01.08.2018, held in para 11 of its judgment:
Wps 10254 of 2025
"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. 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. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records of
others similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If
the case of the petitioner is also found to be similar to those daily wagers,
whose services were regularized, he/she be also regularized from the same
date. 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/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma
