1 2025:CGHC:46198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1971 of 2022 * - Mantri Ram S/o Sukhiya Ram, Aged About 50 Years Working As Peon And Posted At Govt. (Schedule Tribes, Welfare And Development Department) High School Telaidhar, Block Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Tribal Development), Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Block Education Officer, Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.15 19:20:27 +0530 2 regularization strictly taking into account of seniority within time frame, in the interest of justice. 10.(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on the post of Peon and is working with the respondent authorities since 27.06.2007, but till date his services have not been regularized. He would contend that the issue involved in the present petition has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and in the matter of Jaggo Vs. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 : AIR 2025 SC 296. He would contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred cases. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Considering the limited prayed made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner pertaining to regularization in the light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) and Jaggo (supra). The entire exercise shall be completed by 3 the respondent authorities expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s) and observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti