1 2025:CGHC:38228-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 567 of 2025 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Hasaud, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter, Jail Road, Arenya Bhavan Medical College Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer Khairagarh, Forest Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus Lal Chand Sahu S/o Late Shri Preetam Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Madiyan, Tahsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.05 11:31:19 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 136 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4382 of 2020 (Lal Chand Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 548 of 2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Radhey Lal Gond) vide order dated 31.07.2025 observing as follows : “8. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the 3 finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition that when there is an order of competent Court for reinstating service of respondent, he was reinstated, it will have its effect that respondent continued in service since initial date of his engagement i.e. from the year 1996 unless otherwise specified. Further, State Government has issued Circular dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of service of daily wage employee / temporary employee and under Clause B, it is mentioned that regularization of an employee engaged in between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 as daily wage / temporary employee. In the said Circular, under Clause 2 (VII) wherein it is specifically provided that regularization be made against sanctioned and vacant post and it further mentions that wherever in the Department it is required, supernumerary post be created. Clause 2 (VII) is extracted below for ready reference: (viii) fu;fefrdj.k Lohd`r ,oa fjDr in ij gh fd;k tk,xkA bl gsrq ftu foHkkxksa esa vko’;d gks ogka lka[;srj in fufeZr fd;s tk;saA ;fn in gh dysDVj nj ij Lohd`r gks rks Lohd`r inksa ¼nSfud osru ij½ dks fu;fer osrueku esa ifjofrZr ¼l`ftr½ djuk gksxkA 9. While rejecting claim of respondent, Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 26.11.2019 erred in rejecting claim of respondent observing that respondent 4 was discontinued from service in the year 2000 and he has not continuously worked for a period of ten years and further that he has not worked against sanctioned and vacant post said observation / reason assigned for rejecting claim for regularization of respondent is contrary to the order passed by Labour Court wherein respondent has been reinstated which is having effect of reinstating in service from initial date of his appointment and further is in contravention of specific Clause under Circular dated 05.03.2008 as extracted above. 10. Further the Division Bench of this Court while considering almost identical issue in case of Tukaram (supra) has observed that the effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of discontinuance never existed. It was also observed that the litigious worker would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigation before the Labour Court. 11. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is 5 liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 548 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 548 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 548 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in WA No. 548 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan