1 (WPS No. 7620 of 2018) 2025:CGHC:13667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7620 of 2018 1 - Moradhwaj Singh Parihar S/o Late Khedu Singh Parihar Aged About 63 Years Retired Bus Driver, New Subhash Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 50, Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Skill Development And Technical Education Through Its Principal Secretary Mahanadi Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner/ Director Technical Education, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh. Indravati Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Govt. Engineering College, Sej Bahar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Govt. Girls Polytechnic, Byron Bazar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pin - 492011 --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21.03.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent authorities to grant him regularization from the date of his initial appointment. ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.03.25 10:31:42 +0530 2 (WPS No. 7620 of 2018) 2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Driver as contingency paid employee vide order dated 20.09.1984 (Annexure P/4) by the Principal, Government Engineering College, Raipur. Thereafter, the petitioner’s services as contingency paid employee were regularized vide order dated 08.11.1993 (Annexure P/6). Later on, the petitioner was declared as a member of permanent service on completion of 10 years of his service vide order dated 06.03.1995 (Annexure P/8). Ultimately, the petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2017 vide order dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P/14), which the petitioner accepted and then he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2017. Thereafter, he made representation for retrospective regularization before respondent No.4 on 11.08.2017, which has not been taken cognizance of till date, against which this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s services have been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2017, whereas he was ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 06.03.1995. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that since there was no post of driver in the regular establishment of Government 3 (WPS No. 7620 of 2018) Engineering College, Raipur, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be regularized. Even otherwise, the retrospective regularization in service is impermissible in law. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. The question as to whether the regularization should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another v. V. Thippa Setty & Others1 and it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinarily be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under : “2. …………It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed 1 (1998) 8 SCC 690 4 (WPS No. 7620 of 2018) employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.” 7. In the matter of M.Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others2 it has been held by their Lordships that the grant of retrospective regularization must be traceable to Rules. In the matter of Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others3 considering the Rules of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Rule 7, it has been held relying upon the 2 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298 3 (1990) 4 SCC 24 5 (WPS No. 7620 of 2018) earlier decisions that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularization of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner was appointed to the post of Driver as contingency paid employee vide order dated 20.09.1984, thereafter, his services as contingency paid employee were regularized vide order dated 08.11.1993. Later, he was declared as a member of permanent service on completion of 10 years of his service vide order dated 06.03.1995 and ultimately, the petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2017 vide order dated 06.07.2017. As such, since the initial appointment of the petitioner was not made according to the Rules, therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the subsequent regularization of the petitioner does not entitle him to the benefit of intervening service and, therefore, he can not be granted regularization from his initial appointment, as it would affect the others. 9. Accordingly, I do not find merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!