1 2025:CGHC:18421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2024 of 2018 1 - Arjun Nayak (Banjara) S/o Shri Nardo Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Amapali , Post Dongaripali Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Engineer , Public Works Department , Sirpur Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintending Engineer , Public Works Department Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer , Public Works Department Raigarh Division District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer , Public Works Department Raigarh Division District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sandeep Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Tanmay Thomas, Advocate. For State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent department to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner regarding regularization on 25.01.2018 in term of the order/notification dated 05.03.2008 issued by the state government. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon in the year 1988 as a daily-rated employee but till date, his services have not been regularized. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated by the department. He would further submit that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Labour Court, he was reinstated as an unskilled labourer and this fact is evident from the copy of the service book. He would also contend that the petitioner has completed more than 25 years of service; therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities 3 to consider his claim according to the circular dated 5.3.2008. He would also argue that the petitioner has made a representation before the respondent authorities on 25.1.2018 but till date, no action has been taken. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to an order passed by the learned Labour Court and as such, he should approach the learned Labour Court claiming therein regularization. He would further contend that at the time of filing the writ petition in the year 2018, the age of the petitioner was 55 years and at present, he would have crossed the age of superannuation. Therefore, no order may be passed in favour of the petitioner with regard to regularization. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated in service pursuant to an order passed by the learned Labour Court, and this fact is evident from the service book annexed as Annexure-P/1.The service book would further reveal that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.3.1963 and thus, he has already completed 62 years of age. It appears that at present the petitioner is not in service of the department, therefore, no order with regard to regularization can -4- be passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi