1 2025:CGHC:36894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3225 of 2018 * - Hanshadas Sahu S/o Late Chamardas Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Endamara, Post Pendri, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No. 2 : : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner by treating the service of petitioner from October 1990 till date as continuance service in view of reinstatement granted by labour court vide Annexure P/1 and by applying circular dated 05.03.2008 since completed 10 years of serive his case for regularization be considered, soon within stipulated period. 10.2 Cost of the petition be awarded and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.05 10:50:20 +0530 2 2. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. He would contend that the petitioner is claiming regularization and the Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matters passed in WPS No. 1703 of 2015 dated 16.05.2017 has directed the department to consider the claim of the workmen for regularization in terms of the circular dated 05.03.2008. He would pray that this petition may be disposed of in terms of order passed in the the matter of Tukaram (supra). 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 5. In the present case, the petitioner is working as daily rated employee since 1990. His services were terminated in the month of September 1999. Thereafter he approached the learned labour court and his services were reinstated vide order dated 27.05.2015. The claim of the petitioner appears to be similar with the issue involved in the matter of Tukaram (supra) and the relevant paragraphs No. 23 to 26 are reproduced herein below:- “23. Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008 also being the circular of the State Government issued keeping in mind the welfare of the poor workers and has been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed on daily wage basis and the post against which these persons are discharging so as to subserve the common good that can occur to the workers for the long service rendered by the respective workmen. 3 24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category or workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008. 25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just, proper and legal. 26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these petitions is answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioners-workers holding that they would not fall in the category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigating before the Labour Court. As a consequence, the workers in those cases where the claim has been rejected by the respective Respondents on the ground of there being break in service or the claim of the workers being rejected on the ground of their not serving the Respondents prior to 31.12.1997 are all set aside/quashed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of these petitioners-workers for regularization in accordance with the circular granting them the advantage of continuity of service from the date of their initial engagement till date.” 6. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law down by the Hon'ble Division Bench, this petition is disposed of in terms of order passed in the matter of Tukaram (supra) and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the 4 petitioner for regularization in accordance with the circular dated 05.03.2008. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti