2025:CGHC:38295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8324 of 2025 1 - Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Raju Ram S/o Dhaniram Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o 49, Danteshwari Ward, Behind Kanihya Kirana Store, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Laxminath Yadav S/o Gagra Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Khaspara, Darbha, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary General Administartion Department (G.A.D.), Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Secretary Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - E.N.C. Of Public Health Engineering Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Circle - Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Circle Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 7 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Division - Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 8 - Assistant Engineer Phe Department, Sub Division No. Ii, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 9 - Collector Jagdalpur Collectorate Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Santosh Bharat, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. By the present petition, petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.08.05 14:57:22 +0530 Wps 8324 of 2025 2 Handpump Sudharak, pursuant to the Circular dated 05.03.2008 from the date when the similarly situated persons have been regularized. 2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioners are presently working on the post of Handpump Sudharak in department of respondent as Daily Wage employees, and have completed more than 30 years of service. Petitioners are having all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of Handpump Sudharak. Petitioners had submitted their detailed representation to the respondent authorities for considering their case for regular appointment on the post of Handpump Sudharak, as they had already completed more than 30 years of service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature, and also violative of the principles of natural justice, and Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are Daily Wage employees since long. He would further submit that the State Government has regularized the services of similarly situated employees on the basis of Circular dated 05.03.2008, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services on the post of Handpump Sudharak. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (WPS- 4293 of 2012) decided on 10.02.2023. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioners. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record. Wps 8324 of 2025 3 6. Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and others Vs the State of Jharkhand, and others Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018, decided on 01.08.2018, held in para 11 of its judgment: “11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service, they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc.” 7. 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 records of others similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If the case of the petitioners is also found to be similar to those daily wagers, whose services were regularized, they be also regularized from the same date. 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. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma