1 2025:CGHC:13283-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 191 of 2025 1 - Madhav Prasad Sarathe S/o Shri Lalji Sarathe, Aged About 64 Years Working As Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) In The Office Of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Kharsiya, P.S. Kharsiya District Raigarh (C.G.), At Present The Appellant No. 1 Is Retired From The Post Of Junior Assistant Posted In The Office Of C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation Wandrafnagar Branch District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. R/o H.N. 3403 Ranjhi Maharishi Sudarshan Ward No. 64 P.S. Ranjhi District Jabalpur (M.P.) 2 - Umesh Kumar Verma S/o Ramcharan Lal Verma Aged About 61 Years Working As Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) In The Office Of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Chiroud, P.S. Chiroud, Tahsil- Gurur, District Durg (C.G.), At Present The Appellant No. 2 Is Working As Junior Assistant And Posted In The Office Of C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation Branch Lailunga District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Khadya Nagrik Aapurti And Upbhokta Swarakshan Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office N-3, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.25 18:01:46 +0530 2 3 - Karmik Prabandhak, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office, M-3, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 20/03/2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 6720 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/writ appellants for grant of monetary benefits from the month of November 2008 has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the employees of the respondent department since 1992 and their services have been regularized as per the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government. Initially, the petitioners were working as Daily Wager. They filed a writ petition before this Court vide WPS No. 4406 of 2013 claiming the regularization of their services under the circular dated 05.03.2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.01.2014 directing the competent authority to decide their case of regularization in terms of the said circular issued by the State 3 Government. Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 09.10.2014 and then the petitioners claiming their regularization from 2008 and also claiming the difference of amount in between the period from 2008 till October 2014. 3. Replying the writ petition, the respondent No. 1/State had submitted that the impugned order dated 29.07.2016 has been passed by the respondent No.3/Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur and the grievance of the petitioners is to be properly replied by them only. 4. The respondent No.2 and 3 have also filed their reply to the petition and submitted that regularization of the services of an employee cannot be with retrospective effect, but it can be prospective. After examining the case of the petitioners, the answering respondents have passed the order regularizing the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 09.10.2014 and they cannot claim their regularization from the earlier date. Clause-B(viii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008 itself speaks that the regularization of an employee will be effective from the date of issuance of the order of their regularization and not from any earlier date, therefore, the petitioners can only be treated as regularized from 09.10.2014 and they cannot claim the benefit earlier to their regularization. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 27.01.2025 holding that the petitioners’ case for regularization were considered and their 4 services have been regularized w.e.f. 09.10.2014 and they can be treated as regular employees from that date itself and not from any earlier date and as such the petitioners are not entitled for any monetary benefits prior to the date of their regularization, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that the petitioners are working since 1992 and the respondent authorities should have created the class-III and class-IV posts to regularize their Daily Wager Employees, but they did not do so, thereafter, when the order has been passed in WPS No. 4406 of 2013 on 15.01.2014, the posts were created and the services of the petitioners were regularized. The services of the petitioners/writ appellants were required before 09.10.2014 and the petitioners were working with the department, but despite their repeated representations, they have not taken any action to regularize their services. There is no justification from the respondent department for creation of posts and regularization of services of the petitioners from 2014 and therefore the petitioners are entitled for monetary benefits from 2008 to 09.10.2014 and the appeal may be allowed and relief may be granted to the petitioners as prayed in the writ petition. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that after considering the clause-B(viii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008, the order has been passed, which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were Daily Wager Employees with the respondent department and their services have been regularized vide order dated 09.10.2014. Clause-B(viii) speaks about the date from which the employees can be treated as regularized and they cannot claim any benefit from any earlier date from their regularization. The clause-B(viii) is reproduced hereinbelow:- "(viii) परिप्ቔ जाी होने के बाद ्ቚशासकीय विभागों ्ቛाा विनयवितिकण के आदेश जिजस विदन जाी विकये जायेंगें उसी विदनांक से ही विनयवि क$चाी ाने जायेंगें। पू$ के विकसी विदनांक से नहीं। पद्ቅ सूची ें इनके ना आपसी रि्቗ा अनुसा एनब्लाक सबसे नीचे खे जायेंगें।" 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it would also reveal that the learned Single Judge after adverting the entire facts of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Registrar General of India and Another v. V. Thippa Setty and Others” 1998 (8) SCC 690, “Union of India and Others v. Sheela Rani” 2007(15) SCC 230, “M. Janardhan and Others v. State of A.P. and Others” 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 298, “Masood Akhtar Khan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others” 1990(4) SCC 24 and also “Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Others” 2006(4) SCC 1, passed the order dismissing the writ petition, holding that as per the circular dated 05.03.2008, the petitioners are not entitled for any monetary benefits prior to the date of their 6 regularization. This Court is not found force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellants in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. 11. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 12. In view of the above, the writ appeal being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved