1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2450 of 2020 1 - Bisesar Verma S/o Bihari Verma Aged About 43 Years Village - Limtara, Post - Mandla, Tahsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Circle Raipur, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Khairagarh Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub -- Divisional Forest Officer Sub Forest Division Gandai / Chairman Scrutiny Committee Gandai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Forest Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 (P/1) and scrutiny report dated 20.11.2019 (P/2) be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to -2- quash the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 (P/15) being without jurisdiction and illegal. 10.3 This Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was engaged with the respondents as Chowkidar in the year 1994 and continued till the year 2000. In the year 2000, his services were discontinued, therefore, he approached the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court passed an award in favour of the petitioner on 25.01.2011 and an order of reinstatement was also passed. He would further submit that the the petitioner was reinstated in service on 05.03.2011 and since then, he is in continuous employment. He would contend that the petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities for regularization for his service and the matter was referred to the Committee. He would further contend that the Committee vide its report dated 23.08.2019 found the petitioner eligible for regularization. He would submit that WPS No.6924 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner claiming therein regularization and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. He would further submit that the respondent No.4/Divisional Forest Officer by its order 29.11.2019 rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the recommendation made by the Committee, wherein, the petitioner was found eligible for regularization. He would pray to quash the order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4/Divisional Forest Officer. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khare. He would submit that respondent No.4 considered the matter of the petitioner 3 for regularization but he was not found fit. He would further submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Para 6 of the order (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4 dated 29.11.2019 would reveal that respondent No.4 has recorded a categorical finding that the Committee found the petitioner not suitable for regularization, whereas, the Committee recorded a finding that as the petitioner had completed 10 years of service on the same post, he may be considered for regularization. Thus, the finding recorded by respondent No.4/Divisional Forest Officer is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Accordingly, order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha