1 2025:CGHC:27929-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 326 of 2025 Moradhwaj Singh Parihar At Present Age 70 Years, S/o Late Khedu Singh Parihar Retired Bus Drive, R/o New Subhash Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 50, Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Skill Development And Technical Education Through Its Principal Secretary, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner/Director Technical Education, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Principal Government Engineering College, Sejbahar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Principal Government Girls Polytechnic, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.27 10:43:13 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.7620 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case is that the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Driver as contingency paid employee vide order dated 20.09.1984 (Annexure P/4) by the Principal, Government Engineering College, Raipur. Thereafter, the writ petitioner’s services as contingency paid employee were regularized vide order dated 08.11.1993 (Annexure P/6). Later on, the writ petitioner was declared as a member of permanent service on completion of 10 years of his service vide order dated 06.03.1995 (Annexure P/8). Ultimately, the writ petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2017 vide order dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P/14), which the writ petitioner accepted and then he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2017. Thereafter, he made representation for retrospective regularization before respondent No.4 on 11.08.2017, which has not been taken cognizance of till date, against which the appellant 3 preferred writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order by learned Single Judge. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition without deciding second issue with respect to entitlement of grant of pay scale of Rs. 575-800 for Heavy Vehicle Driver to the appellant / writ petitioner or not. He further submits that the State Government contended in his reply that as far as grant of pay scale equivalent to driver of heavy motor vehicle is concerned though a ground was raised there is no factual foundation in the petition substantiated with documentary proof nor there is any relief prayed for to that effect, whereas the appellant / writ petitioner has submitted his Class 9th mark-sheet along with Heavy Vehicle Driver license to prove that the appellant / writ petitioner was having requisite qualification for Heavy vehicle Driver and therefore he is entitled to get the same. He also submits that the appellant / writ petitioner has also annexed Annexure P-13 in writ petition, which clearly states that for Heavy Vehicle Driver educational qualification prescribed is Class 8th pass and having Heavy Vehicle Driver license, which was already fulfilled in the instant case. As far as no relief prayed to that effect is concerned, the appellant / writ petitioner in para 10 (ii) of the writ petition clearly prays for grant of pay scale of Rs. 575-800 from the date of accrual to the writ petitioner and further prayed to pay arrears of the difference of the pay with the interest of 12% per annum. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be 4 allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents / State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that as the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Driver as contingency paid employee vide order dated 20.09.1984, thereafter, his services as contingency paid employee were regularized vide order dated 08.11.1993. Later, he was declared as a member of permanent service on completion of 10 years of his service vide order dated 06.03.1995 and ultimately, the writ petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2017 vide order dated 06.07.2017. As such, since the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not made according to the Rules, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the subsequent regularization of the writ petitioner does not entitle him to the benefit of intervening service and, therefore, he can not 5 be granted regularization from his initial appointment, as it would affect the others. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ appeal as also with writ petition and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu