1 NAFR Reserved on : 13.11.2024 Delivered on 30.04.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 482 of 2016 Girish Sharma S/o Shri P.L. Sharma, Aged About 46 Years Working As Fireman, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o New Sarkanda, Bangalipara, Gali No.4, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, R.D.A. Bhavan, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Commisssioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents And WPS No. 4385 of 2020 1. Girish Sharma S/o Shri P.L. Sharma, Aged About 46 Years Working As Fireman, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o New Sarkanda, Bangalipara, Gali No.4, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Ramcharan S/o Shri Bhaiyalal, aged about 52 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Village Sambalpur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 2 3. Dev Kumar S/o Shri Mangal Ram, aged about 40 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Village Nipaniya, Seepat, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 4. Malik @ Manik Ram S/o Shri Dauwa, aged about 43 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Village Ghuru, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 5. Vinod Dubey S/o late Bhagwat Dubey, aged about 43 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Balram Talkies Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 6. Dilip S/o Bhagat Ram, aged about 48 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 7. Mahesh Kaushik S/o Shri Brijlal, aged about 48 years working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Village Guru, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 8. Jagdish Tiwari S/o Shri Rampratap Tiwari, aged about 48 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Kasruba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, CG 9. Santram Kewat S/o Shri Heeralal Kewat, aged about 44 years, working in Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Village Saida, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, CG ... Petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. The Joint Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, R.D.A. Bhavan, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Commisssioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respdt/State : Shri Kulesh Sahu, PL For Respondent No.3 : Shri H.B. Agrawal Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. 3 Preeti Yadav Adv. & Shri Ashok Kumar Verma and Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocates (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order As the issue sought to be addressed in these two petitions is identical, they are being disposed of by this common order: 2. In WPS No. 482/2016 the following reliefs have been sought for by the petitioners:- “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 quash the order dated 03.08.2013 passed by the Respondent No.3. 10.3 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to re-consider and decide the case in accordance with law and the light of Circular dated 05.03.08 within stipulated period. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. In WPS No. 4385/2020 the following reliefs have been sought for by the petitioners:- “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 quash the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 (Ammexire P-1) passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization. 10.3 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to regularize the 4 service of the petitioners as the similarly placed employees have been considered and regularized on 10.10.2019 with consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners have been appointed in the year 1995 as daily wages employees in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and they are working as such since then. As per circular dated 05.03.08 issued by the State Government by which the Respondents/ authorities should take steps to regularize the services of such employees who have worked for 10 years on duly sanctioned civil posts. The petitioners are therefore entitled for regularization by the Respondents/authorities as per circular dated 05.03.2008. The similar matter has been decided by this Court where it was pleased to pass an order directing the respondents/authority to consider and scrutinize the case of all individual as per rules. On 29.09.08 the meeting was held by Mayor in Council of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur in which the decision has been taken that the employees who are working till date, they may be considered for regularization as per circular dated 05.03.08. It is also mentioned that if there is break in service because of strike, that should not be taken into account in consideration of their regularization. The Respondent No.3 prepared a list of the daily wages employees who have worked till the year 1997 and even thereafter, therefore, they are entitled for regularization of their service as per circular of the Government dated 05.03.2008. It has been also mentioned therein that any objection may be filed within the period of 7 days in the office of the Respondent/authority. On 24.04.2007 the Respondent No.1 has issued order regarding creating new posts in Municipal Corporation Bilaspur under 5 section 58 of CG Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The posts of 4th class employees have been also created and in these posts the petitioners may be regularized. It cannot be said that no post is available and therefore, they could not be considered for regularization. On 13.08.2010 a report has been submitted by the Scrutiny Committee regarding regularization of the employees working under the Respondent No.3. The petitioners and other employees filed a writ petition which has been disposed off on 24.02.2012 with direction to the Respondent authority to consider and scrutinize the case of the petitioner individually as per circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the Government. 4. In WPS No.4385/2020, it is stated that since the respondent No.3 has taken into account the period of service break for less than one month without any documents, the same treatment may be given to the petitioners also as they have worked in the Corporation without payment which is proved by letter dated 07/10/2019 and this period may be counted as the working period for the purpose of their continuous service. However, it is manifest in this case that the period of working of some of the petitioners has not been included in their service and is shown to be break in their service and for that the claim for regularization has been rejected, and being so the order dated 31/01/2020 passed by the respondent No.3 is not legally correct and liable to be set aside. It is also stated that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the matter of Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of U.P. reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and latest being in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Mishra & ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors decided on 13/12/2019 wherein it has been held that if the employees have worked on the sanctioned post for more than 10 years, they are entitled for regularization as 6 per communication and circular of the State Government. In the present case, after being appointed on the sanctioned post long back they are working continuously till date. It is submitted that 17 different posts have been sanctioned by the Government, names of several employees were sent for consideration but the petitioners’ name were not sent for the reasons best known to the respondents/authorities, and therefore the respondents may be directed to send their names to be considered for regularization. They are also qualified and there is unblemished record during their employment and even till date, and as such the order dated 31/01/2020 is liable to be set aside and respondent No.3 may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioners. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no break in service in the case of the petitioners as they have obtained the information under Right to Information in which the copy of muster roll has been given which proves the facts that there is no break in service and they have been paid the salary of that period which has been shown break in service by the Respondent No.3. He thus submits that showing the break in service for more than a month in a particular year is illegal and arbitrary and this clearly shows that respondent No.3 is not willing to regularize the services of the petitioners. He submits that on 05.03.08 the Government has issued circular regarding the regularization of the daily wages employees who have worked for 10 years in the post may be considered for regularization on the said post. He further submits that the circular clearly mentions that if the posts are not available, new posts may be created. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners’ case is also covered with the aforementioned circular and therefore their case for regularization may be accordingly. He submits that as per circular of 05.03.2008, the employees who are working as daily wages and are entitled 7 for regularization, their services should not be counted in break in service from the year 2001 to 2004. He submits that the petitioners have submitted their representation to the Respondents/ authority stating that there is no break in service and as such they are entitled for regularization but the Respondent No.3 has not considered their case properly as per order passed by this Court and rejected the representation without scrutinizing the case individually in letter and spirit. He places reliance on the decision of the Supreme in matter of Amarkant Rai Vs State of Bihar reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3080. He submits that the action of the Respondent No.3 in not considering the case of the petitioners for regularization of their service is illegal and against the circular of the Government. The gist of the elaborate submissions of the counsel for the petitioners is that the discriminatory attitude of the respondents/authorities is violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the similarly situated employees have been regularized ignoring the break in service. 5. Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioners have preferred the present petitions challenging the impugned orders Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.3 rejecting the representations of the petitioners for regularization on the ground that there is break in service. He submits that these petitions have been preferred by the petitioner after a lapse of considerable period and on the ground of delay and latches, the present petitions are not maintainable and deserve to be dismissed at the threshold. He further submits that by way of the present petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned orders (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur whereby the representations submitted by them for regularization of their services have been rejected on 8 the ground that there is a service break in service and therefore they cannot be considered for regularization as per the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the state government. He submits that the guideline/circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Raipur in respect of regularization of the Class III and Class IV employees working as daily wagers or on ad hoc basis contain certain terms and conditions. The relevant Clause 2 (iii) which is very specific in this regard, is being reproduced here for ready reference of this Hon'ble Court, as under: - “2 (iii) संबंधित व्यሹኌ ने दैሹኌनक वेतन भोगी (चाहे कलेक्टर दर पर) के रूप में अथवा तदथ# रूप में ሹኌदनांक 31.12.1997 तक लगातार उसी पद पर या समक्ቌ पद पर काय# ሹኌकया हो के संबं में लगातार काय# करना (सेवा देना) तक ही माना जायेगा यሹኌद ्ቚत्येक व्ቧ# में कु ल सेवा ्ቜेक एक माह से अधिक की न हो। लगातार सेवा के लिलये हड़ताल की अवधि सेवा में ्ቜेक नहीं मानी जायेगी ।" 6. It is further further submitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others reported in (2006) 4 SCC, wherein it has been held that "Supreme Court and High Courts should not issue such directions, unless the recruitment itself was made in terms of the constitutional scheme and that no person can claim for regularization in view of the fact that he is working on contract basis. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supports the orders impugned and submits that working on ad hoc or contract basis does not give them a right for regularisation, and thus the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for by them, and there is no illegality in the orders impugned. 9 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. From the documents on record that it is manifest that the petitioners are working under respondent No.3 for a considerable long period but they have not yet been regularized as yet though the similarly situated persons have got the said benefit vide order dated 10.10.2019. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ku. Rafikunnisa Rehman v. State of Chhattisgarh and others relying upon the order of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujrat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (order dated 18.02.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition to Appeal (C) No. 1109/2002) keeping in view its previous decisions has set aside the order denying regularization and directed the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners in that case from the date of resolution passed to this effect, by its order dated 05.10.2023 passed in WPS 6069 of 2017. The said order of the co-ordinate Bench has also been affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 29.07.2024 passed in in Writ Appeal No.468 of 2024. 10. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the petitioners are working as daily wagers for a considerable long time, that they have not been regularized as yet for technical reasons though the similarly situated persons have received the benefit of regularization, the impugned orders denying them regularization manifestly appear to be discriminatory and being so they are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioiners from the date of resolution passed in the meeting of Mayor-in-Council, Municipal Corporation, 10 Bilaspur dated 29.09.2008. They are held entitled for all consequential benefits including increments, pension etc. 11. Let this exercise of regularization of the services of the petitioners be positively completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. The petitions are thus allowed with the observations made hereinabove. Sd/-/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Saxena/J AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2025.05.02 10:17:06 +0530