1 / 3 2025:CGHC:39669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 123 of 2022 1 - Vishwanath Ram Gupta S/o Late Tilak Ram Gupta Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 46, Dhoor, Odhgi, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vansharoop Dewangan S/o Punaram Dewangan Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 23, Dhoor, Odhgi, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Assistant Kudargarh (Dhoor), Forest Division Kudargarh (Odhgi) Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07.08.2025 (1) By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent, authority to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Secuity Guard pursuant to the circular dated 05.03.2008 from the date when the similarly situated persons have been regularized. REKHA SINGH 2 / 3 (2) Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners are presently working on the post of Secuity Guard in department of respondent as daily wager and have completed more than 25 years. The petitioners having all the requisite qualifications for holding the said post. The petitioners had submitted their detailed representation to the respondent authorities for considering their case for regular appointment as they had already completed more than 25 years. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature and also violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are daily wager since long. He would further submit that the State government has regularized the services of similarly situated daily wage employees on the basis of circular dated 05/03/2008, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services on the post of Secuity Guard. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No.4293 of 2012 (decided on 10.02.2023). (4) Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. (6) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Jharkhand passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423- 7429 of 2018 (decided on 01.08.2018) held in para 11 as under: 3 / 3 "11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc." (7) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to inspect the records of others similarly situated employees when their services were regularized. If the case of the petitioners are also found to be similar to those daily wagers whose services were regularized, their services be also regularized from the same date. It is also directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha