-1- 2025:CGHC:43425 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 220 of 2022 Dharmendra Kumar Kunjam S/o Late Kawal Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Ghotgaon, Post Ghotgaon, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1- The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Dhamtari Division, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3- Sub Division officer, Public Works Department Sub Division Number 2, Nagri, District Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 331 of 2022 Jitendra Kumar Markam S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 37 Years Village Bishampuri, Post Podagaon, Tahsil Nagri, District-Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Dhamtari Division, Dhamtari, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. -2- 3 - Sub Division officer, Public Works Department Sub Division Number 2, Nagri Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.08.2025 1) The petitioner(s) have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization from 12/8/2008 as had been done with respect to other employees and further please to direct the respondents to pay the salary equivalent to other regular employee. ii. further please to direct the respondents to pay all arrears of pay to the petitioner with all consequential relief. iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2) The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as permanent Gangmen on compassionate appointment vide orders dated 11.04.2005 and 04.05.2005. It is their contention that another employee, who was also appointed on compassionate basis, has been regularized by the department vide order dated 12.08.2008, but despite repeated representations, the claim of the petitioners for regularization has not been considered till date. Hence, they seek a direction to the respondents to consider their claim for regularization with all consequential benefits. -3- 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners have no vested right to claim regularization. It is contended that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable from the case of the employee whose services were regularized, and therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5) It is not in dispute that the another employee who was also appointed on compassionate basis, his services were regularized vide order dated 12.08.2008, but the claim of the petitioners for regularization has not been considered by the respondent authorities. 6) Prima facie, the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioners, while extending the benefit of regularization to another similarly situated employee, appears to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7) Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents especially, respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners with regard to regularization and consequential benefits, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8) It is expected that the authorities concerned shall provide due opportunity of -4- hearing to the petitioners before passing an appropriate order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim