1 2025:CGHC:40028-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 593 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Forest, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Hasaud, Naya Raipur, 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 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh, Forest Division Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Vishwanath Gond S/o Late Ram Prasad Gond Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kolarghat, Tahsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 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 11.08 .2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 136 days in preferring the appeal. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.11 18:34:31 +0530 2 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.02), the same is allowed. Delay of 136 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the State/appellants against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.4164 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.548 of 2025 vide order dated 31.07.2025 observing as follows : “8. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the 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 3 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) नियनि तिकरण स्वीकृ एवं रिरक्त पद पर ही निकया जाएगा। इस हेु जिज निवभागों ें आवश्यक हो वहां सांख्येर पद निर्मि निकये जायें। यनिद पद ही कलेक्टर दर पर स्वीकृ हो ो स्वीकृ पदों (दैनिक वे पर) को नियनि वे ा ें परिरवर्ति (सुजिज) करा होगा।" 9. While rejecting claim of respondent, Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 26.11.2019 erred in rejecting claim of respondent observing that respondent 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 4 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. 5 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is 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 Writ Appeal No.548 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed off 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 Writ Appeal No.548 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.548 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.548 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu