1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2953 of 2018 1 - Padumn Lal Dubey S/o Late Shri Channulal Dubey, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Gram Panchayat Ravlidih, Development Zone Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Chief Conservator Of The Forest (Administration), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Area Durg, 5 Building, Jail Road, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 16/09/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : I. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be leased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders directing the concerned department and authority to regularize the petitioner as a Class IV employee on the post of PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.09.17 10:26:04 +0530 2 peon. ii. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has perform his duties as daily wager with the respondent departments from 1989 to 1997 and he has not been regularized in light of circular dated 05.03.2008, his case ought to have considered for regularization. Therefore, this writ petition was filed seeking for the above relief. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission and submits that initially the petitioner was working as daily wagers till February, 2000 and all dues have already been paid to him. He was also considered not found fit for regularization and since February, 2000, is not in job. 4. Perusal of the records indicates that no pleadings has been made in the writ petition that the petitioner is still working as a daily wager with the respondents. The stand of the respondent/State in paragraph No. 3 is very categorical that the petitioner only worked till February, 2000 with the respondents. From the records it does not appear that thereafter, the petitioner is still working with the respondents as daily wagers. Therefore, in light of above and particularly when the fact of petitioner was not working as daily wagers since February, 2000 has not been controverted by rejoinder, this Court is of the opinion no case is made out by the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan