1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4024 of 2021 1 - Rajaram Sahu S/o Late Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Budar, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sant Kumar Yadav S/o Late Kaoleshwar Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Dabripara, Post Office Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Ramnath S/o Sundar Say Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sarbhoka, P.O. Sarbhoka, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Amar Say Rajwade S/o Raghuvar Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Amapara P.O. Patrapali, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Rajesh Singh Gond S/o Late Shri Manmohan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Janakpur, P.O. Bharatpur, Tahsil And P.S. Bharatpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Indal Kumar Kewat S/o Late Shri Mahesh Ram Kewat Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Janakpur, P.O. And Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Koriya, District Koriya (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy.A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.04.2026 1. Heard. 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to quash the order dated 23.09.2020(AnnexureP-6) directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their eligibility alongwith all consequential monetary and service benefits including the seniority. 10.2. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioners including the cost of the petition.” 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are the employees of the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management. Initially, petitioner No.4 was appointed on the post of Peon (Recovery Agent) for a period of six months in the year 1983, whereas, other petitioners were appointed in the year 2005 on a fixed pay scale. The petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent authorities claiming relief of regularization on the basis of their long service. The representation was forwarded to the Secretary, Revenue Department by the Deputy Collector, District Koriya on 28.07.2011. The Collector vide its letter dated 05.02.2019 recommended regularization of the petitioners and other similarly situated Recovery Agents. The said authorities specifically stated that the petitioners worked for a period of six months in a calender year. But when no heed was paid, WPS No.9520 of 2019 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2019 with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide pending representation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of order. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 23.09.2020 rejected the representation made by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are appointed as Recovery Agents for a period of six 3 months in each calender year and that their posts are temporary in nature. 4. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a direction was issued in WPS No.9520 of 2019 to consider the length of service and recommendation made by the State Government but respondent No.1 failed to consider said direction. He would further submit that the petitioners are working since 20 years as Recovery Agents against vacant posts and they are entitled for regularization in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo Vs.Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. He would pray to set aside the order dated 23.09.2020 vide Annexure P/6. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla. He would submit that the post of Recovery Agent was created under the provision of Chhattisgarh Book of Financial Rights (Part-II), 1995 Serial No.6, Clause-18, (for short ‘the Rules of 1995’), wherein, it is said that appointment would be temporary in nature. He would further submit that the appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners would clearly show that they were appointed for a period of six months in a calender year and their appointments were temporary in nature. Mr. Pandey would submit that there was no sanctioned and vacant post against which the petitioners were appointed, therefore, they cannot claim regularization. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Recovery Agents pursuant to the Rules of 1995; however, the said Rules do not provide for vacant posts. The appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioners would further reveal that they were appointed for a period of six months in a calender year to recover the land revenue in a particular district and their appointments are part-time and temporary in nature. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra), has held that uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be ignored merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. Para 10 is reproduced herein below : “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.” In para 26 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the judgment passed in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and held that the judgment aimed to distinguish 5 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. It is held that 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. 9. In the matter of Bhola Nath Vs.State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” has been deprecated. It is further stated that the Government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment. 10. In the matter of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam,Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Uma Devi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. Umadevi (supra) itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”. 11. In the matter of Bhola Nath (supra) in para 13.9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State must remain conscious that part- time employees, such as employees, constitute an integral part of 6 the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. 12. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the Rules of 1995 and they have completed more than 20 years of service. They are being paid pay scale along with annual increments and dearness allowance, therefore, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggu (supra) and Bholanath (supra), a strong case is made out in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, order passed by respondent No.2/Collector, Koriya (C.G.) dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure P/6) is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Jaggo (supra) and Bholanath (supra). The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha