1 2025:CGHC:19877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7438 of 2018 1 - Kamta Sinha S/o Murha Sinha Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post-Bandha Bazar, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajesh Kumar Ramteke S/o Ramji Lal Aged About 47 Years R/o Mahud, Post-Mahud, Tahsil-Ambagarh Chowk, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jaitram Yadav S/o Late N.R. Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village And Post-Baghera, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Suresh Kumar Patel S/o Sarjan Patel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Kanharpuri, Post And P.S. Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahlu Ram Sahu S/o Kundal Sai Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Kallutola, Tahsil-Chhuriya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Health And Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 3 - The Deputy Director Ayurved Yog And Natural Medical Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Premises, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Ayurved Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Ayurved Officer Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Ms. Diksha Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents to take decision on the recommendation made by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/2) for declaring and treating the petitioners as full time sweepers, in accordance with law. 10.2 Any other relief deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were temporarily appointed as part-time sweepers on Collector rate. She would further submit that their appointments were made on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayats. It is also contended that the petitioners worked for four hours daily in the office. She would also submit that as the petitioners have been working since 1990, 1992, 1995 & 1996, respectively, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider their claim for regularization. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the petitioners were appointed only as part-time sweepers. He would contend that according to the circular dated 5.3.2008, the claim of regular employees can be considered for regularization. He would further submit that, since the petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers, their claim cannot be considered. He would also contend that the claim of the petitioners has already been considered and rejected by the competent authority. He would further contend that the order passed on 25.5.2018 has not been challenged by the petitioners, and that they have suppressed this fact in the present petition. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. -4- 5. It appears that the petitioners had earlier filed WPS No.2789 of 2018 seeking regularization of their services. The matter was disposed of vide order dated 4.4.2018, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioners made representation and the competent authority rejected the representations vide order dated 25.5.2018. In the present petition, the petitioners have not disclosed the fact that WPS No. 2789 of 2018 was filed and their representations were rejected. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers and representations moved by them pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 2789/2018 have already been rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 25.5.2018, no case is made out for interference. 7. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi