[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Mansingh Dhiwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13406
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 376 of 2021
Maniram Sahu S/o Late Shri Guharam Sahu Aged About 49
Years Village- Sikola Basti, Ward No. 16 Durg. Post And Tahsil-
Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road
Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District- Durg
(Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Divisional Forest Officer Durg, Division Durg, District- Durg
(Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
5. Chairman Scrutiny Committee Durg, District- Durg
(Chhattisgarh) / Divisional Forest Officer, Durg District Durg
(Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
6. Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Forest
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District-
Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WITH
Mansingh Dhiwar S/o Late Shri Guhri Ram Dhiwar, Aged About
50 Years Village Sikola Basti, Ward No. 16 Durg, Post And Tahsil
Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter Jail Road
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Divisional Forest Officer, Durg, Division Durg District Durg
Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
5. Chairman Scrutiny Committee Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh./
Divisional Forest Officer, Durg District Durg, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
6. Under Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Forest
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
20.3.2026
1) By way of these petitions, petitioners have sought following
reliefs:-
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased
to quash the impugned order dated 5.12.2019
(P/1) and be pleased to direct the respondents to
regularize the services of petitioner forthwith.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the impugned order dated
17.12.2019 (P/11) being without jurisdiction and
illegal.
10.3 This Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the
records for its kind perusal which relates to
petitioner's matter.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in
favour of the petitioner.
2) Facts of present cases are that petitioners were initially appointed
as daily-rated employees under Forest Department on 1.4.1995
and their services were discontinued vide order dated 29.1.2000.
Petitioners raised dispute before learned Labor Court and vide
order dated 4.3.2015, a direction was issued to respondents to
re-instate the petitioners in service. Thereafter, petitioners
preferred WPS No. 1668 of 2019 and WPS No. 1673 of 2019
claiming therein regularization in service in light of circular dated
5.3.2008 issued by State Government and these petitions were
disposed vide order dated 11.3.2019 directing respondent
authorities to pass a fresh order within period of 90 days.
Thereafter, claim of petitioners was considered by Divisional
Forest Officer, Durg and rejected vide order dated 5.12.2019
observing that there was break in service and petitioners did not
work continuously for period of 10 years.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that findings recorded
by Divisional Forest Officer, Durg are erroneous and contrary to
the well settled principle of law. He further submits that petitioners
were engaged in service by respondents on 1.4.1995 and order
of re-instatement was passed by learned Labor Court in favor of
petitioners on 4.3.2015, thus litigating period would be counted as
service period and in this regard he has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of
Tukaram Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others passed in
WPS No. 1703 of 2015. He prays to quash the orders impugned.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there was
break in service, therefore claim of petitioners for regularization
has been rightly rejected by the DFO, Durg. He further submits
that petitioners were engaged in service in year 1995 and their
services were discontinued in year 2000 and they were re-
instated in the year 2015, thus they were not in continuous
service for more than ten years. He contends that according to
circular dated 5.3.2008, petitioners are not entitled for
regularization.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
6) In the matter of Tukaram (supra), the core issue involved was as
to whether the period during which the workman was out of
employment by virtue of an illegal termination order would also
have to be counted for the purpose of calculating the total length
of service. Hon'ble Division Bench answered this question in
para-26 and held that workers would not fall in the category of
litigious workers and that they would be entitled for continuity of
service for period they were out of employment while they were
litigating before the Labor Court.
7) It is not in dispute that petitioners were appointed as daily-rated
employees in the year 1995 and their services were discontinued
in the year 2000. Thereafter, they raised dispute before learned
Labor Court and order of re-instatement was passed in their favor
on 4.3.2015, thus in light of Tukaram (supra), it can be safely
presumed that petitioners were in continuous service for more
than twenty years and the findings recorded by DFO, Durg in the
orders dated 5.12.2019 are erroneous.
8) In view of the discussion made herein-above, the orders dated
5.12.2019 are hereby quashed and matter is remitted back to
DFO, Durg to re-consider the claim of petitioners for
regularization. Since the petitioners are claiming regularization
since year 2008, the authority concerned is directed to take the
decision expeditiously, preferably within period of 150 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9) Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
