1 / 4 2025:CGHC:18757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2790 of 2025 1 - Fulsita Kerketta W/o Shri Dilip Bhagat Aged About 43 Years Working As Post Of Aushdhalay Sevak (Contract Basis) At Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary Bataikela, Thana- Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Ayurved Officer, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 2831 of 2025 1 - Jayant Xalxo S/o. Shri Hendari Xalxo Aged About 37 Years Working As Post Of Driver (Contract Basis) At Office Of The District- Ayurvedic Hospital Jashpur, Thana And Tahsil - Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.04.26 11:00:36 +0530 2 / 4 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Ayurved Officer Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/04/2025 1. Since identical issues involved in the above mentioned writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. By the present petitions, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Aushdhalay Sevak and Driver respectively pursuant to the circular dated 05.03.2008 from the date when the similarly situated persons have been regularized. 3. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are presently working on the post of Aushdhalay Sevak and Driver respectively in the respondent Department on contract basis and has completed more than a decade. The petitioners are having all the requisite qualifications for holding their respective posts. The petitioners had submitted their detailed representation to the respondent authorities for considering their case for regular appointment as they had already completed more than a decade. 3 / 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature and also violative of principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are working on contract basis since long. He would further submit that the State government has regularized the services of similarly situated employees on the basis of circular dated 05/03/2008, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services on the post of Aushdhalay Sevak and Driver respectively. 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 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 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 1 WPS No. 4293 of 2012 (decided on 10/02/2023 2 Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (decided on 01/08/2018) 4 / 4 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." 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all these petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records of other similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If the case of the petitioners are also found to be similar to those employees whose services were regularized, their 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 $. Bhilwar