1 2025:CGHC:46139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4282 of 2018 Prabhuram Korram S/o Shri Somnath Korram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Farasgaon, P.S. And Tah. Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Civil And Revenue District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Welfare And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantarlay, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare And Development Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Block Education Officer, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1.That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2. That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per circular dated 12.12.14 (Ann.P/6) for reinstatement on the post of peon in contingency establishment as he has worked 3 years continuously on Collector rate. 10.3.Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4.That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was engaged under the respondent department on 27.08.2008 as a daily-rated employee and continued till 2018. In the year 2012, WPS No. 5084/2012 and other connected matters were filed by the petitioner and similarly situated employees seeking regularization. Those writ petitions were disposed of on 14.12.2012 permitting the petitioners therein to make a representation before the respondent authorities in terms of Circular dated 07.03.2012. 3. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 06.03.2018 on the ground that a male employee cannot be appointed in a Girls’ Hostel. 4. Learned counsel would contend that in view of the Circular dated 07.03.2012, after completion of the requisite period of service, the 3 petitioner has acquired the status of a contingency paid employee and, therefore, he is entitled for regularization of services; thus, he prays that this writ petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee in the year 2008 and was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional mandate. It is further contended that though in the earlier writ petition filed in 2012, liberty was granted to the petitioners to make a representation before the authorities, but the outcome of such representation has not been placed on record by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner were discontinued from 06.03.2018 on the ground that a male employee cannot be appointed in a Girls’ Hostel. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by non-compliance of the order passed in WPS No. 5084/2012 and connected matters, he ought to have filed contempt proceedings; thus, the present writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 7. In WPS No. 5084/2012 and other connected matters, the Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 14.12.2012, observed in paragraph 3 as under: “3.Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the case of all the petitioners will be scrutinized in accordance with the prevailing circular dated 07.03.2012 and if they are found fit, appropriate order thereafter, for their continuation of services, will be passed in accordance with law. ” 8. From perusal of the documents, it is evident that though the petitioner made a representation pursuant to the liberty granted in the aforesaid writ petition, but no favourable decision was taken and vide order dated 06.03.2018, his services were discontinued on the ground that a male member cannot be appointed in a Girls’ Hostel. Further, the 4 respondents have not taken any decision in terms of Circular dated 07.03.2012 as directed in the earlier writ petition. 9. If the petitioner was aggrieved by such non-compliance of order passed in WPS No. 5084/2012, appropriate remedy available to him was to file contempt case & instead of doing so, he has filed present petition claiming similar reliefs, therefore, in my opinion, the present petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 10. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy available to him under law. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim