1 / 5 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5900 of 2021 1 - Rath Ram Patel S/o Bhagau Ram Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post - Pisid, Police Station - Kasdole, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division (Constuction) Kasdol, District-Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Division, Kasdol Tahsil And P.S. - Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Azka Alam, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07.08.2025 (1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the 2 / 5 respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services. (2) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee prior to 1988 in the Water Resources Department. She would further submit that the petitioner approached the learned Labor Court against the order of retrenchment and for regularization of his services and an order was passed in his favour on 03.01.2003. She would also submit that the order dated 03.01.2003 was challenged by the State before the Industrial Court and the order was maintained by the Industrial Court on 29.11.2004. She would contend that the orders dated 29.11.2004 & 03.01.2003 were challenged before this Court by filing WP(L) No. 6422 of 2007 and the award dated 03.01.2003 & 29.11.2004 were maintained vide order dated 08.01.2018. She would argue that the respondent-department has regularized services of similarly situated daily-rated employees but the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. In support thereof, she placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, AIR Online 2023 SC 854. (3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that posts were not available, therefore, services of the petitioner could not be regularized. He further submits that Clause 4 of the circular dated 05.03.2008 stipulates that as a one-time measure, proceeding for regularization can be initiated. He contends that as a one-time measure, a proceeding was initiated for regularization but the names of the petitioners could not be considered on account of (i) the non- availability of sanctioned posts and (ii) their services were not 3 / 5 required. He further contends that the petitioners were found not fit for regularization and their claim was turned down vide order dated 10.04.2019. (4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents / material available on record. (5) Perusal of the order dated 10.04.2019 would show that the claim of daily-rated employees for regularization was considered as a one-time measure. It further states that since posts are not available and there was no need for daily-rated employees, therefore, the claim of the peti- tioners was turned down. A perusal of the circular dated 05.03.2008 indicates that this circular is in two parts. The first part deals with the regularization of services of daily-rated employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and the second part deals with the regularization of daily-rated employees appointed from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. (6) Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and the respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008 which says that “the employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 would be appointed against posts of work-charged and contingency paid employees or as regular employees in the department.” It further says that “if posts are not available, supernumerary posts will be created.” The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that posts are not vacant. It appears that the authority concerned rejected the claim of the petitioner according to the second part of the circular dated 05.03.2008; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities with regard to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for 4 / 5 regularization appears to be erroneous. It is stated in the return filed by the State that the services of some of the daily-rated employees were regularized. The respondents in their return have not assigned reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner for regularization was not considered, whereas the claim of some daily-rated employees was considered by the respondent authorities. (7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra) in paras 10 and 11 while dealing with a similar issue held as under:- 10. We are not inclined to accept the submission on behalf of the respondents. When the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that 65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of regularizing the services of only 35 employees and not regularizing the services employees, including the appellants, discriminatory and violative of Article Constitution of India. is 14 of other patently of the 11. In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court was in error in not entertaining the contempt petition. However, at this stage, relegating the appellants again to the High Court would unnecessarily cause delay in delivering justice to the appellants. (8) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra), it is quite vivid that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the (i) observations made hereinabove and (ii) according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent 5 / 5 authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (9) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha