1 2025:CGHC:41413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 166 of 2015 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattsigarh The Petitioner No.1 Wad Not A Party Before The Learned Labour Court But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 Was Not In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department., Chhattisgarh 2. Executive Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam Division No. 3, Machadoli, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Minimata Bango Bandh Sambhag Karmank 4/15, Machadoli, Tahsil Podi Uproda District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Makhan Singh W/o Budhwar Singh, Aged About 46 Years R/o Bango, Police Station Bango, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattsigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18-08-2025 1) The petitioners/State have challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Korba (C.G.) in Case No. 25/I.D.Act/2013/Reference dated 27.06.2015 whereby the order of Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.19 10:00:42 +0530 2 termination of services was set aside and respondent was reinstated in service without payment of back wages. 2) Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/petitioners would fairly submit that services of respondent have been regularized vide order dated 05.03.2024. He would contend that the award passed by the learned Labour Court has already been complied with. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that as the services of respondent have already been regularized, nothing survives for adjudication. 4) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 27.06.2015, services of the respondent have been regularized vide order dated 05.03.2024; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya