1 WPS No. 407 of 2016 2025:CGHC:3225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 407 of 2016  Nand Kishore Yadav S/o Gangaram Yadav, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Basiya, P. S. Sirgitti District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Forest Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Civil/Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh… 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For Respondents :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/01/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus directing regularization as per State Circular dated 05.03.2008. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.22 10:32:04 +0530 2 WPS No. 407 of 2016 2. Mr. Rishabh Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has qualified to be regularized in terms of State Circular dated 05.03.2008 as he was appointed on the daily wage basis prior to 31.12.1997, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would submit that the petitioner’s case has been examined by the Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure R/1, in which, it has been found that the petitioner has not worked regularly for the period as required. He would further submit that the petitioner had worked in the year 1989 for 1 month, 1990 for 5 months, 1991 for 4 months, 1992 for 7 months, 1993 for 6 months, 1994 for 3 months, 1995 for 6 months, 1996 for 4 months, 1997 for 1 month and in 1999 for 1 month, therefore, his services cannot be regularized in terms of Clause ब(2)(iii) of State Circular dated 05.03.2008. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 3 WPS No. 407 of 2016 5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Clause ब(2) (iii) of State Circular dated 05.03.2008, which states as under:- “ ब (2)(iii) संबधित व्यሹኌ ने दैሹኌनेक वेतने भोगी ( चाहे कलेक्टर दैहे पर) क रूप ेሰ अथवे तदैथ" रूप ेሰ ሹኌदैनेक 31.12.1997 तक लेगीतर उसं पदै पर य संेሰक्ቌ पदै पर कय" ሹኌकय हे क संब ेሰ लेगीतर कय" करने ( संवे दैने) तब हे ेሰने जायगी यሹኌदै ्ቚत्यक वे्ቧ" ेሰ क) ले संवे ቜኔक एक ेሰहे सं अधिक ने हे। लेगीतर संवे क धिलेय हेड़तले क. अवेधि संवे ेሰ ቜኔक नेहे/ ेሰने जायगी।" 6. The case of the petitioner has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee vide Annexure R/1 and after consideration it has been held as under:- " उपर कय" ሹኌदैवेसं ሹኌक ሹኌवेवेरणी ेሰ ्ቦሹኌेሰक ቛኋर वे्ቧ" 1989 सं वे्ቧ" 1999 तक लेगीतर कय" करने नेहे/ पय जा रहे हे, संबधित ्ቦሹኌेሰक क ሹኌनेयሹኌेሰतकरणी हेत) प3वे" ेሰ कय"लेयने अሹኌभोलेख ेሰ संबधित ्ቦሹኌेሰक क वे्ቧ" 2000 ेሰ ेሰआवेजा / उपदैने क. रሹኌ6 क भो)गीतने परिर्ቌ्ቔ अधिकर ሹኌबलेसंप)र ቛኋर ्ቚेሰणीक ्ቅ. 100 ेሰहे 03/2000 ेሰ करत हे:य उनेक संवे सं प;थक ሹኌकय गीय थ, संሹኌेሰሹኌत क ቛኋर ሹኌदैनेक 26.05.2012 ेሰ ሹኌदैय गीय ्ቚेሰणी प्ቔ धिजासंेሰ उ ्ቦሹኌेሰक क ሹኌनेयሹኌेሰतकरणी क धिलेए प्ቔ हेने नेहे/ पय गीय. दै6"य गीय हे। ्ቦ नेदै ሹኌक6र यदैवे ሹኌदैनेक 21.06.2016 क संሹኌेሰሹኌत क संेሰ्ቌ उपቝኌ=थत हे:ए थ धिजासंेሰ उनेक संሹኌेሰሹኌत क पसं उपलेब् अሹኌभोलेख? क अवेलेकने करत हे:ए उनेक कहे गीय थ ሹኌक यሹኌदै उनेक पसं अሹኌतरिर और कई अሹኌभोलेख ऐसं हे जा संሹኌेሰሹኌत क पसं नेहे हे. धिजासं वेहे ्ቚ=त)त करने चाहेत हे त ऐसं अሹኌभोलेख? क संሹኌेሰሹኌत क संेሰ्ቌ ्ቚ=त)त कर संकत हे, धिजासंक धिलेए उनेक ሹኌदैनेक 30.06.2016 क. तरख क. प6 दै गीई। प)नेC ्ቦ नेदै ሹኌक6र यदैवे ሹኌदैनेक 30.06.2016 क संሹኌेሰሹኌत क अध्य्ቌ क संेሰ्ቌ उपቝኌ=थत हे:ए एवे उनेक ቛኋर धिलेधिखत ेሰ एक प्ቔ ሹኌदैय गीय धिजासंेሰ उन्हे?ने यहे बतलेय ሹኌक उनेक पसं कई भो अሹኌतरिर अሹኌभोलेख य ्ቚेሰणीक ्ቚ=त)त करने क धिलेए नेहे/ हे, अሹኌपत) उनेक ቛኋर प3वे" ेሰ छानेबने संሹኌेሰሹኌत क. सं3चा ेሰ अपने क धिसंरिरयले ्ቅ. 16 ेሰ अपने क प्ቔत क. ्ቦणी ेሰ ेሰनेने क आर दै6"य। वेत"ेሰने ेሰ छानेबने संሹኌेሰሹኌत ቛኋर उपलेब् ऊपर दै6Hत ्ቚेሰणीक? क गीहेने अध्ययने करने पर यहे पय गीय क. संबधित ्ቦሹኌेሰक वे्ቧ" 1989-1999 तक लेगीतर कय" करत नेहे/ पय गीय हे. हे. जाሹኌब ሹኌनेयሹኌेሰतकरणी क. प्ቔत क धिलेय ሹኌदैसंम्बर 1997 क प3वे" कय"रत हेने क संथ संथ लेगीतर 10 वे्ቧJ तक कय" करने। धिजासंेሰ 4 WPS No. 407 of 2016 ्ቚत्यक वे्ቧ" क. कय" अवेधि क दैKरने अधिकतेሰ 30 ሹኌदैने सं ज्यदै क अवेक6/ अने)पቝኌ=थत नेहे/ हेने? चाሹኌहेए। उ आर पर संबधित ्ቦሹኌेሰक ሹኌनेयሹኌेሰतकरणी वे=त प्ቔ नेहे/ पय जा रहे हे।" 7. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee is that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in a calender year and also he has not worked regularly for a period of 10 years prior to 1997 is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on the record. 8. As such, I do not find merit in the instant writ petition, accordingly, it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit