2025:CGHC:44246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10186 of 2025 Gokul Prasad Kewat S/o Anau Ram Kewat Aged About 50 Years Working As Daily Wager Employee And Posted At Office Of Water Resources Department R/o Village Semariya, P.O. Kosamsara (K), Tahsil Kasdol District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Water Resources Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer Mahanadi Pariyojna, Water Resources Department Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Tahsil Kasdol District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Balar Canal Water Resources Sub Division Kasdol District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri KP Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri KS Saini, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. Claim of the petitioner in the present petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondents for considering his claim for regularization of his service . 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, according to the petitioner, he was initially engaged as Daily Wage Worker in respondent department in the year Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.03 10:54:02 +0530 Wps 10186 of 2025 2 1987. He continued to work there for a period of about 7 years, and discontinued since 1994. The discontinuation part of service was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Raipur, in Case No.56/ID Act/2011, which was decided on 21.02.2013, resulted in reinstatement of the petitioner. Earlier, petitioner had filed WPS-2449 of 2018, for regularization of his services , which was disposed of on 21.03.2018, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said representation was rejected on 10.04.2019 (annexure P1). Petitioner was reinstated in service on 10.04.2013, and without there being any interruption, he is working under the respondent authorities, and claimed for his regularization of service as the other similarly situated employees have been regularized by the department. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that the department had moved the proposal for regularizing similarly placed daily wage workers, and the department shorted out list of 22 candidates of all similarly placed who were entitled for consideration of regularization. However, out of 22 candidates, only one was considered, and regularized by the Department. The others have been left out, or ignored without any cogent, or justifiable reason, which has led to the filing of present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the order of the Labour Court declaring the discontinuance of 1994 to be illegal, and the order of the Labour Court getting affirmed by the Industrial court in an appeal, and also by this Court in a writ petition applying the principles of relating back the employment of the appellant-worker has to be treated as to be in Wps 10186 of 2025 3 continuous employment from the time of the discontinuance made w.e.f.01.08.1984, which has been struck down by the Labour Court. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of “Tukaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh & others” WPS No.1703 of 2015, decided on 16.05.2017, whereby a similar view has been affirmed by the Division bench of this Court. 5. According to the petitioner, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be regularized, particularly taking into account the fact that the initial engagement of the petitioner was in the year 1987 as Daily Wage Worker, and therefore, he falls under Clause (A) of the Circular of the State Government dated 05.03.2008. 6. The State counsel, on the other hand, submits that since the claim of the petitioner has till date, not been finally decided by the respondents, the matter can be disposed of in light of Relief clause No.10(A) of the writ petition and the authorities can be ordered to take an appropriate decision after due verification of his entitlement part. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned State counsel the writ petition, at this juncture, stands disposed of directing the respondents to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner for regularization, and to pass an appropriate decision keeping in view the employment of the petitioner between 01.08.1994 till 10.04.2013, and also the claim of the petitioner having been reinstated from 10.04.2013, on which post he is till date working. The department also in the course of deciding the representation would keep in view the judgment of this Court in the case of “Tukaram Sahu” (supra), Wps 10186 of 2025 4 service record of the petitioner, and applicable rules and circulars holding the field. 8. Let an appropriate decision in this regard be taken by the respondent authorities within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma