1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2878 of 2018 1 - Sada Singh S/o Shivram Aged About 52 Years Pump Operator Under Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, P. S. Dantewada, District- South Bastar- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Singh S/o S/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 47 Years Peon, In The Office Of Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, P. S. Dantewada, District- South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary/ Director, Department, Of Planning And Urban Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, District- South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General For respondent No.3 : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.01.2025 -2- 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record relating to petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority to regularized and permanent join the petitioner in the respective post of the service. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition..” 2. Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as a Pump Operator and Peon, respectively, on a daily wage basis in the year 1995 under the contingency fund in Nagar Panchayat, Datewada. The petitioners are still working under respondent No.3 as daily rated employees. He would further submit that an application was moved for regularization according to the Circular dated 05.03.2008 before the respondent authorities but no decision was taken. It is also contended that the petitioners filed WPS No.2228/2013 and the same was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to examine their claim in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1. He would contend that the petitioners preferred a writ appeal which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization according to the circular. He would further contend 3 that the services of petitioner No. 2, namely, Krishna Singh have already been regularized by the department but the name of petitioner No.1 has not been considered. He would pray for a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the case of petitioner No.1. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Amit Kumar. He would submit that the vacancy is not available with the Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada, therefore, petitioner No.1 could not be regularized. He would further submit that various communications have been made with the State Government for the sanction of the post but till date, no action has been taken. 4. Mr. Pandey, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would argue that in the absence of a vacant post, the claim of petitioner No. 1 could not be considered. He would further submit that the case of petitioner No.1 would be considered immediately if the vacancy arises. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Vinay Pandey and Mr. Vikas Pandey, counsels appearing for the respondents, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to make all endevours to consider the claim of petitioner No.1 for regularization. It is expected that the respondent authorities shall consider the claim of petitioner No.1, if -4- there is a vacancy. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha