1 2025:CGHC:16672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2384 of 2025 1 - Vidyanand Sharma S/o Bhairo Prasad Sharma Aged About 61 Years R/o 34/168, Chhotapara, Gandhi Chauk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Division No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 09/04/2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.09 16:24:36 +0530 2 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks regularization of his service on the post of Peon from the date when the similar situated employees have been regularized, in the light of the circular dated 05/03/2008 issued by the government. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Peon in department of respondent as daily wager and has completed more than 20 years. The petitioner is having all the requisite qualifications. The petitioner submitted his detailed representations to the respondent authorities for considering his case for regular appointment as he already completed more than 20 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature and also violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is daily wagers since long. He would further submits that the State government has regularized the services of similarly situated daily wage employees on the basis of circular dated 05/03/2008, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for regularization of his services in his respective posts. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh1 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. 1 WPS No. 4293 of 2012 (decided on 10/02/2023) 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others2 held in para 11 as under: "11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc." 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records of others similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If the case of the petitioner is also found to be similar to those daily wagers whose services were regularized, his services be also regularized from the same date. It is also directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep 2 Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (decided on 01/08/2018)