1 2025:CGHC:33321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9220 of 2019 Mithlesh Shrivas S/o Chhedilal Shrivas Aged About 42 Years R/o 27 Kholi, Pump House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., 3 - The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Mr. AS Kachhawaha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be quashed the order dated 31.7.2019 and regularized the service of the petitioner from the date when the service of other juniors to the petitioner has been regularized. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.18 18:06:19 +0530 2 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner has been working as a daily wager under respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur since 1997 and in the light of State Government’s circular dated 05.3.2008, she was entitled for regularization, but the respondent authorities have not regularized her services on the ground that there was break in service for more than one month in the year 2000. Therefore, the petitioner has filed instant petition seeking relief, as has been prayed in the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working as a daily wager employee with the Office of respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, but till date, her employment has not been regularized only on the ground that there was break in her service from 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2000. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a daily wager and she was directed to perform her duty through oral instructions and in the month of January 2000, she was working at Sanjay Taran Pushkar on the basis of oral direction of the respondent authorities and thereafter, she was directed to perform her duty at Devkinandan School. In this regard, learned counsel referred Certificate issued on 08.5.2025 by Principal of the said school, in which endorsement has also been made by former Principal of that school (said certificate has been filed along with covering memo dated 26.6.2025). Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of Order dated 05.3.2008 passed by Government of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was eligible for her regularization, but the same has not been given by the respondents, thereby she has been deprived. He would next submit that in pursuant to the Order dated 3 05.3.2008, other daily wages employees were regularized by respondent No.3, therefore, employment of the petitioner may also be regularized from 2008. In this regard, he placed reliance on the cases of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. , 2024 SCC Online 3826 and Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad, 2025 SCC Online 221. 4. Respondent No.3, who is the main contesting party in this case, has filed reply. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, while referring to its reply would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on 01.8.1997, thereafter her service was terminated on 15.01.2000 and subsequently she was reinstated on 01.7.2000. Thus, she remained out of service for approximately 5-6 months. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, scrutiny committee was constituted and the matter of regularization of the petitioner was examined and it was found that since there was a break in service for more than one month, hence in the light of Clause 2(iii) of Circular No.F 12-1/2007/1-3, Raipur dated 05.3.2008, she was not found fit for regularization, as there was break in service for more than one month in the year 2000. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for by her. 5. The State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply, supported the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been engaged as daily wager employee in the office of respondent No.3 since 01.8.1997. Thereafter she has been working continuously as a daily wager employee. In the light of the 4 judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Government of Chhattisgarh has issued Circular No.F 12-1/2007/1-3, Raipur dated 05.3.2008 for regularization of daily wager employees. Though the petitioner has been working as a daily wager employee with respondent No.3 since 1997, but she has been held “not entitled to regularization” because there was a break in service from 01.01.2000 to 30.6.2000, therefore, she was not found eligible for regularization. But respondent No.3 is availing her services at a low salary for more than 27 years. The petitioner is a daily wager employee, therefore, liberal approach ought to have been adopted by the respondent authorities for her regularization. Further, when specific question was posed to learned counsel for respondent No.3 that, what concrete document has been filed by them to prove the fact that the petitioner was not in employment from 01.01.2000 to 30.6.2000, then he could not demonstrate any such document, except note sheets which were prepared by the office of respondent No.3. But that note sheets are not a proof for absence of any employee, rather the same was prepared only because of order passed by this Court. Attendance register or muster roll has not been filed by respondent No.3 to prove the fact that the petitioner was absent from her duty from 01.01.2000 to 30.6.2000. 8. In the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. ML Kesari and Ors. Reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Apex Court while dealing with the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, 5 regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees 6 or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date." 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularization” enunciated in Umadevi (supra), if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (supra), directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (supra), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to 7 whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 9. In the matter of Jaggo (supra), Apex Court while considering the regularization of the low paid employee has held as under:- 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby 8 contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 10. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Shripal (supra), while reiterating the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Jaggo (supra) has held in para 17 as under:- 17. In the light of these consideration, the Employer’s discontinuation of the appellat Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their service were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do nto absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 11. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, that the petitioner has been engaged with the office of the respondent No.3 since 1997, but till date she has not been regularized and she has been compelled to perform duties on a very low pay scale for 27 years, whereas, it was informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that juniors to petitioner namely Shri Dinesh Lallu, Shri Govind Sahdev, Shri Dashrath and various other persons have already been regularized in their service. 12. 12. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, I feel inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, impugned Order dated 31.7.2019 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside/quashed and respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of 9 the petitioner for her regularization from the date when her juniors were regularized on their employment. 13 The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini