1 2025:CGHC:23644 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3907 of 2025 1 - Ramchandra Godare S/o Shri Shivlal Godare Aged About 51 Years R/o Sweepar Colony, Amapara, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director National Cadet Core (State Cell), Chhattisgarh, Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Administrative Officer National Cadet Core (State Cell) Chhattisgarh Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Dt-Col Commanding Officer Ncc Group Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment On Board 12/06/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.18 19:31:39 +0530 2 impugned order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure -P/1) whereby a direction was issued to the respondent No.3 to draw the salary of the petitioner on collectorate rate despite the fact that his services have been regularized by the respondent authorities vide order dated 22.08.2003. 2. The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs in his writ petition: "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby setting aside the issued by respondent no. 2 and 4 dated 05.01.2012, (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 & 4 to restore the services of pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2600-60-3200 the petitioner on as regular Lascar with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including cost." 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lascar on the basis of collector rate vide appointment order dated 18.06.1998 (Annexure-P/2) and vide order dated 22.08.2003, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Regular Contingency Lascar. On 20.09.2012, respondent No.3 issued an order for not regularizing the services of the daily wages employees and the employees getting salary on collector rate. Services of the petitioner were de-regularized and the petitioner was being paid as daily wages employee vide Annexure-P/4. After the lapse of 09 years, respondents No.2 & 4 have passed the orders dated 05.01.2012 and fixed the salary of the 3 petitioner from regular pay to daily wages. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the services of the petitioner have been regularized, it could not have been recalled without giving show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. By the said order, the petitioner has suffered monetary loss, as his salary has been substantially reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs 5,000/- per month. She would submit that in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1), it was observed that if the regularization has already been made, it need not be re-opened. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit orders impugned were passed in year 2012 and this petition has been filed in the year 2024 i.e. after a lapse of 09 years thus this petition suffers from delay and laches. She prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed to the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 7. In the matter of Umadevi (supra), it has been categorically held that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment. Relevant para-53 reads thus:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to 4 be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 8. In view of the aforesaid, it is explicit that a case of regularization which has attained finality and was not subjudice would not come within the purview of exception to the aforesaid rule and the petitioner's case would thus fall within the purview thereof, as his services were regularized vide Annexure-P/3 and without complying with the principles of natural justice, a person who has been regularized cannot be deprived to again make contingency employee. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order and the action of the respondents are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pay in terms of the order dated 22.08.2003 (Annexure-P/3). The arrears shall be calculated and paid within the next 4 months after producing the certified copy of this order before the concerned authority, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 10% 5 per annum from the date of filing of this petition till its realization. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition and all the pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok