1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 726 of 2017  Khagpati Pawar S/o Late Shri Budhram Pawar, Aged About 45 Years Working As Daily Wager Employee And Posted At Narayanpur, Jan Shakti Niyojan Vibhag Women Industrial Training Institute Narayanpur, Post And Police Station Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Technical Education I. T. I., Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Joint Director, Directorate Employment And Training Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 4. Superintending, Mahila Industrial Training Institute Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 5. Principal, Mahila Industrial Training Institute Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned letter dated 04.02.2014 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.17 14:04:53 +0530 2 passed by the respondent no. 2 and direct the respondent to consider representation of the petitioner regarding regularization on any post in pursuance of circular dated 05.03.2008. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization strictly taking into account of seniority within time frame. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Chowkidar under the Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, Narayanpur vide order dated 03.03.1994; the petitioner has passed class 8th. He further submits that the petitioner filed WPS No. 1952 of 2013 claiming therein regularisation, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2013, directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the circular dated 05.03.2008. He contends that the petitioner has continuously worked from 03.03.1994 till 03.03.1999, and the same is evident from the document Annexure P/2 issued by the Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, Narayanpur, even though he was not found fit for regularisation. He further contends that the circular dated 05.03.2008 provides that if an employee has worked continuously prior to year 1997 without there being break for a period of 30 days in a year, his name would be considered for regularization but the name of petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there was a break in service for more than 30 days in a year. He argues that the findings recorded by the committee, as well as respondent No. 2, are erroneous and perverse. He prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there was a 3 break in service for a period of more than 30 days in a particular year; therefore, the petitioner’s claim was rejected according to Clause (iii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008. He contends that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) It is informed by Mr. Koshaley that the petitioner is still working for the respondents. Perusal of the document Annexure P/2 would show that the petitioner was appointed on 03.03.1994 and he worked till 03.03.1999 without any break in service. The circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government states that “claim of a daily-rated employee for regularisation shall be considered if he was employed against a vacant post prior to the year 1997 and has worked without there being a break of more than 30 days in a year.” 6) The petitioner filed WPS No. 1952 of 2013, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. Thereafter, the respondents constituted a committee, and the name of the petitioner was considered on 02.09.2013 and 03.09.2013. The claim of the petitioner was considered at S. No. 3, and it was observed by the committee that there was a break in service for more than 30 days, but there is no clear description of such a break in the service. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.02.2014 assigning similar reasons. It is apparent from the document Annexure P/ 2 that there was no break in service. 7) Taking into consideration the fact that there was no break in service, the findings recorded by respondent No. 2 in this regard are illegal, perverse and erroneous, and the order impugned dated 04.02.2014 is 4 hereby set aside. 8) The respondent authorities are directed to consider the name of the petitioner for regularisation afresh in light of the document Annexure P/2 issued by the Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, Narayanpur, within a period of 120 days from today. 9) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya