1/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) 2025:CGHC:4751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 6720 OF 2016 1. Madhav Prasad Sarathe, S/o Shri Lalji Sarathe, aged about 55 years, working as Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) in the office of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Kharsiya, P.S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Umesh Kumar Verma, S/o Ramcharan Lal Verma, aged about 49 years, working as Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) in the office of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Chiroud, P.S. Chiroud, Tahsil, P.S. – Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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.) 3. Karmik Prabandhak, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office, M-3, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) With WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 1550 OF 2017 1. Devendra Kumar Shripande, S/o Shri Neelam Chand Shripande, aged about 51 years, working as Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) in the office of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District Surguja, Civil and Revenue District Surguja (C.G.) 2/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) 2. Rajesh Kumar Sarathe, S/o Balaram Sarathe, aged about 52 years, working as Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) in the office of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Hathkhoj, P.S. Durg, District Durg, Civil and Revenue District Durg (C.G.) 3. Rajendra Singh Chhira, S/o Dabal Singh Chhira, aged about 53 years, working as Junior Assistant (Daily Wager) in the office of Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Jagdalpur, P.S. Civil Lines, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Civil and Revenue District Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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.) 3. Karmik Prabandhak, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Head Office, M-3, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners :- Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/ :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, State Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.2&3/ :- Mr. Anuroop Panda, Corporation Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Single Bench ] Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board [27-01-2025] 1. Both these Writ Petitions are directed against the impugned Orders dated 29.7.2016 by which the Petitioners have been denied the monetary benefits prior to the date of their regularization. 3/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) 2. The Petitioners were working as daily wager in the Respondent-Corporation since 1992. This Court by its Order dated 15.1.2014 disposed of W.P.(S) No.4406/2013 which was filed by the Petitioners, directing the competent authority to decide their case of regularization in terms of the Circular dated 5.3.2008 issued by the State Government. Accordingly, the case of the Petitioners was considered and they were regularized with effect from 9.10.2014. Thereafter, the Petitioners made their respective representation seeking regularization from 2008 and also difference of amount for the period from 2008 till the period when they were regularized in service i.e. in October, 2014, which has been rejected by the Respondent-Corporation vide impugned Orders. 3. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the Respondent-Corporation is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim/ representation of the Petitioner and the Petitioners ought to have been granted the monetary benefit from the year 2008. 4/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) 4. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Corporation and Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State Counsel, both support the impugned Orders. 5. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 6. Circular dated 5.3.2008 by virtue of which the Petitioners’ services have been regularized, Part-B clause (viii) of which clearly provides that daily wagers/ad-hoc workers will be deemed to be regular employee from the date when order of their regularization is passed and not from the prior date and their name shall be placed below in the Gradation List en-bloc as per their inter-se seniority. For ready reference, clause (viii) is being reproduced herein under:- “(viii) Ifji= tkjh gksus ds ckn iz’kkldh; foHkkxksa }kjk fu;fefrdj.k ds vkns’k ftl fnu tkjh fd;s tk;saxsa mlh fnukad ls gh fu;fer deZpkjh ekus tk;saxsaA iwoZ ds fdlh fnukad ls ughaA indze lwph esa buds uke vkilh ofj”Brk vuqlkj ,uCYkkd lcls uhps j[ks tk;asxsaA” 7. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of 5/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others1 wherein it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinary be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under:- “2. ...It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of 1 (1998) 8 SCC 690 6/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.” 8. Similarly, in Union of India & Others v. Sheela Rani 2, the principles of law laid down in V. Thippa Setty (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court with approval and wherein it has been held in paragraph-11 as under:- “11. In Registrar General of India & Anr. v. V. Thippa Setty & Ors. (supra), the Tribunal's direction was to regularize the respondents w.e.f. the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment depending on the seniority list. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11.5.1985, the regularization was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19.2.1993, the Tribunal had directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status w.e.f. 5.2.1981 i.e. the date of their entry into service as Investigators. This Court held that the employees had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficient long time. If the ad hoc service is regularized from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the 2 (2007) 15 SCC 230 7/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularization must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. This Court ordered that care must be taken to see that regularization do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked.” 9. In the matter of M.Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others3, it has been held by their Lordships that the grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules. In the matter of Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others 4, considering the Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, it has been held relying upon the earlier decisions that if the initial appointment is not made according to the rules, subsequent regularisation of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority. 3 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298 4 (1990) 4 SCC 24 8/ 8 (WPS Nos. 6720 of 2016 & 1550 of 2017) 10. In the instant case, the Petitioners were initially not appointed on the sanctioned posts in accordance with rules. They were kept on daily wages on a fixed remuneration and in light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors. 5 the Petitioner’s case for regularization was considered and they were regularized in terms of the Circular dated 5.3.2008 of which Part-B, Clause (viii) itself provides that they will be deemed to be regular employee from the date when order of their regularization is passed and not from any prior date and their name shall be placed below in the Gradation List en-bloc as per their inter-se seniority. The Petitioners have been regularized on 9.10.2014 with prospective effect. As such, the Petitioners are not entitled for any monetary benefits, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the present two Writ Petitions which deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) sharad Judge 5 (2006) 4 SCC 1 SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Digitally signed by SHARAD KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.01.30 16:21:17 +0530