[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Bais vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2026
1
SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Digitally signed
by SUNITA
GOSWAMI
Date: 2026.03.25
18:01:32 +0530
2026:CGHC:14288-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 9536 of 2025
1 - Rajesh Bais S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Bais Aged About 51 Years R/o Shri
Krishna Goshala, Madhuvan Road, Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur ( Chhattisgarh )
Pin No. 495-001
2 - Pramod Samund S/o Shri Kamlu Prasad Samund Aged About 47 Years
R/o Shri Krishna Goshala, Madhuvan Road, Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur
( Chhattisgarh ) Pin No. 495-001
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Union Of India Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry
Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110001
2 - Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through- Its Chairman, North Block, New
Delhi 110001
3 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad
Road, Opposite Maida Mill, Bhopal ( M.P. ). 462011
4 - Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building Civil Lines,
Raipur- Chhattisgarh 492001
5 - Commissioner Of Income Tax Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh 495001
6 - Zonal Account Officer Aayakar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Opposite
Maida Mill Bhopal ( M.P. ) 462011
7 - Naresh Yadav S/o Ramadhar Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Vidya
Nagar Gayatri Mandir Chowk, Distt.- Bilaspur ( C.G. ).
2
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate
appears along with Ms. Rameshwari
Kumari, Advocate
For UOI/Respondents No. 1 to 6 : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor
General appears along with Shri Rishabh
Dev Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.7 None
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
25/03/2026
1) By virtue of this petition, the petitioners are questioning the legality and
propriety of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.441/2012, whereby, the
claim of the petitioners seeking their regularization on the basis of the
judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Others, reported
in (2006) 1 SCC 1, has been refused.
2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while referring to the
order dated 13.03.2018 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018 [arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33258-
33259 of 2015] in the matter of Ravi Verma And Ors. Vs. Union of
India And Ors., submits that since the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal has already been set-aside, therefore, the petitioners, be
regularized with effect from 01.07.2006 as their case is similar to that of
the Appellants therein, i.e. "Ravi Verma And Others".
3) While opposing the aforesaid contention of the petitioners, it is
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Union
of India that since the petition as framed is suffers from its delay and
laches, therefore, they are not entitled to be regularized, as claimed by
them. The petition as framed is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the entire record.
5) From perusal of the record, it appears that by virtue of the order
impugned, the concerned Tribunal has decided other similar matters
also, in which, one of the petitioners, namely, Ravi Verma, whose claim
was also of similar in nature and which was refused by the Tribunal, as
well as by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, was questioned before
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, whereby, the common order as delivered
by the Tribunal on 11.10.2013, has been set-aside. Paragraphs 12 to
15 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose which read as
under :-
"12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length,
we are of the considered opinion that appointments were
only irregular one, this Court observed in para 53 Uma Devi
(supra) thus :
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA
(supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N.
NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph
15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years
or more but without the intervention of orders of
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization
of the services of such employees may have to be
considered on merits in the light of the principles
settled by this Court in the cases above referred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the
Union of India, the State Governments, and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a
one time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in
duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders
of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure
that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily wagers
are being now employed. The process must be set
in motion within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularization, if any already made, but
not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further by-passing
of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per
the constitutional scheme."
13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and
regularization of the similarly situated employees at other
places and various recommendation that were made the
services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in
the year 2006; discriminatory treatment has been meted out
to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were
entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve
under the cover of court's order. Illegality has been
committed by not directing regularization of services.
14. We direct that the services of the appellants be
regularised w.e.f. 1st July 2006 they are entitled to
consequential benefit also let the respondents comply with
the order in a period of three months from today.
15. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the
CAT are set aside. The appeals are allowed to the
aforesaid extent."
6) As observed herein above that the case of the petitioners is similar to
that of said Ravi Verma and Others, therefore, the petitioners would
also be entitled to get the regularization as passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the said matter of "Ravi Verma And Others Vs. Union
of India And Others". Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal on
11.10.2013 in Original Application No. 441/2012, insofar as the present
petitioners is concerned, is hereby set-aside.
7) Consequently, the petition is allowed and the concerned Respondents
are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from
01.07.2006 and grant them consequential benefits flowing therefrom
within a period of three months from today, failing which, consequential
benefits will carry interest @ 10% per annum.
8) No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
sunita
