1 2025:CGHC:23607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 755 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Aged About 44 Years Working As Driver, R/o Vill. Dindo, Post- Salwahi, Balrampur, Dist.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dr. Kamalpreet Singh Ias Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohan Ram Bhagat Executive Engineer, Department Of Public Works, Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 12/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. The challenge in the present contempt petition is the non-compliance of the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.13 11:40:08 +0530 2 in WP(S) No. 1822/2025, whereby the following observation has been paid by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. “8. 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 muster roll and all records when the services of other daily wagers 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 with all consequential benefits. 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after passing of the order dated 18.03.2025 in the writ petition, which was for regularization of the services of the petitioner, he moved his detailed representation on 21.04.2025 and 19.03.2025, but, without verifying of muster roll of the petitioner, the authorities have rejected his representation on 25.04.2025 (Annexure–C/3) which is totally non-compliance of order dated 18.03.2025 in its true letter and spirit . 4. From perusal of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2, it reveals that after verification of the service record of the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, declining the regularization of the services of the petitioner. 5. From perusal of the Para-8 of the impugned order, it appears that the co- ordinate bench of this Court has directed that, 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 with all the consequential benefits. But, in the present case, the authorities have 3 not found to be regularized the services of the petitioner as he is employed since 01.11.2023 and as per the Circular Dated 05.03.2008, moved by the State Government, his services cannot be regularized. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any willful violation of the impugned order passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika