Raj Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1125 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Raj Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026

                                            1




                                                           2026:CGHC:14703
                                                                          NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 2832 of 2026

1 - Raj Kumar S/o Shri Jagpat, Aged About 31 Years Working As Peon (On Collector
Rate), At Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (E And M) Sub
Division Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) R/o Village Nagra,
Dhanvan Para, Near Believers Church, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.)
                                                                     ... Petitioner
                                         Versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)


2 - Engineer In Chief , Department Of Public Works Nirman Bhawan, North Block,
Naya Raipur (C.G.)


3 - Chief Engineer , Public Works Department (E And M) , Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
(C.G.)


4 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M) , Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)


5 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (E And M) , Division Ambikapur,
District- Surguja (C.G.)


6 - Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department (E And M) , Sub Division
Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
                                                                   ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 30/03/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:-

"10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to scrutinized the case of petitioner and further be pleased to regularize the service of the petitioner, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is employee of

respondents and was initially appointed as daily wage employee on

01.01.2016 and since then, he is continuously performing his duty on

the said post. Petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service

however, he has not been regularized. He submits that petitioner may

be permitted to submit representation before the respondent authorities

raising all the grievance as raised in this writ petition and further,

direction be issued to concerned respondent authorities to consider

and take decision on the claim of petitioner for regularization of her

service within specified time frame.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that as petitioner

is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking

permission to submit representation and a further direction to consider

and take decision on representation to be submitted by petitioner, he is

having no objection.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on record.

5. Claim as raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is

continuously working as daily wage employee for more than about 10

years.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others

Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2)

472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily

wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further,

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Versus Union of India

reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the

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.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected

Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30th January 2026

has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the

appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under

nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them

consideration for regularization and have further directed for

regularizing the appellants therein, in service.

8. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs.

State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly

deprecated the culture of "ad-hocism" adopted by States in their

capacity as employers. Hon'ble Supreme Court also criticized the

practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to

evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures

perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and

lawful engagement practices and observed thus:

"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"

thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

x x x

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

9. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is engaged as daily wage

employee since 1997, the circular issued by the State Government

dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee

and the relief as claimed by petitioner for regularization of his service

as also considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is disposed

permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation

before the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and if, such a representation is

submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on

the representation keeping in mind the period of service which the

petitioner has completed of about 10 years as also the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily

wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law

expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the

date of receipt of representation.

10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and

direction.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-Sd/-

                                                        (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                                                               Judge


        Digitally
SHUBHAM signed by
DEY     SHUBHAM
        DEY



     Dey