1 2025:CGHC:1048-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 839 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Forest, Naya Raipur Mantralaya, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. (Respondent) 2 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, C.G. (Respondent) 3 - Divisional Forest Officer Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur, C.G. (Respondent) ... Appellant(s) versus Shiv Prasad Kashyap S/o Late Tilak Ram Kashyap Aged About 47 Years R/o Village And Post Gadwat, Thana Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. (Petitioner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.01.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.09 11:13:05 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for appellant / State on I.A. No.02/2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 2158/2017 (Shiv Prasad Kashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein with direction to the appellant / state to regularize the services of the writ petitioner from the date when the services of other similarly situated persons were regularized and also grant him back wages within consequential period of three months. 4. Brief facts are that the writ petitioner claimed regularization on the basis of his appointment on the post of Choukidar on 01.07.1988 stating that since then he has been working in the Department. The respondent / writ petitioner also averred that persons juniors to him who were working with him had been regularized but despite his representations on 24.06.2010, 09.07.2013 and dated 23.12.2013 submitted in pursuance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 3 03.12.2013, his name was not considered for regularization. The respondent / writ petitioner contended that the appellants / respondent authorities issued impugned order dated 03.03.2017 declined the claim of the petitioner for regularization on account of break in service for more than one month. Being aggrieved by impugned order dated 03.03.2017, petitioner filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 2158/2017. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 13/03/2024, set-aside the impugned order dated 03/03/2017 and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner from the date when the services of other similarly situated persons were regularized and also grant him back-wages with other consequential benefits as per rules within three months. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set- aside. He further submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that though the writ petitioner was appointed prior to 1997, but he was not engaged in continuous service till 2008, as such he did not fulfill the criteria as fixed by the State of Chhattisgarh in circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Secretary. State of Kamataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others", reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. He further submits that the 4 learned Single Judge ought to have considered that, no appointment order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner and he was engaged as per the availability of work and after considering all the aspects of the matter and providing opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. Later, the learned Single Judge without considering the above legal aspects of the matter, passed the order dated 13.03.2024 in a very mechanical manner without due appreciation of facts and the law governing the field. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider that, the writ petitioner had been engaged as per the requirement of work purely on temporary basis without any constitutional mode of recruitment and there is a guideline for regularizing the services of the daily-wager employees, thus, the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the Department is not established. Therefore, the services of the present petitioner could not be regularized in view of the circular dated 05.03.2008. In view of the circular/guideline for regularization dated 05.03.2008, the petitioner is not at all entitled to be regularized, therefore, his claim cannot be considered by the Department. He lastly submits that The learned Single Judge of has failed to appreciate the fact that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the matter of "State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Singamuthu", reported in (2017) 4 SCC 113 in its Paragraph No. 8 that, "Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that, 5 continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularization in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and the consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part time appointments be regularized or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularization is missing from the rule book and regularization casts huge financial implications on public exchequer." 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has observed that it is apparent from the aforesaid order of the learned Labour Court that the writ petitioner was reinstated in the service, however the respondent authorities by the impugned order dated 03.03.2017, denied his claim of regularization on the ground of break of service for more than one month. The learned Single Judge further placed reliance in an identicaly matter of Suresh Kumar Kaushik vs. State of C.G. and Ors. passed by this Court in WPS No. 2365/2013 and has held that according to the list of daily wage employees related to 6 Court case annexed with letter of respondent No.3, the name of the writ petitioner finds place at Sl. No.11. In the said list, the date of joining of the writ petitioner was shown to be 01.07.1988 and in column No.9 it was written that the writ petitioner is entitled as per the provision of State Government. Thus, it is apparent from the said list that the writ petitioner was found suitable for regularization and the learned Labour Court had set aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner. Being so, the impugned order dated 03.03.2017 is not sustainable that the petitioner's service was broken for more than one month. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 03.03.2017 and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner from the date when the services of other similarly situated persons were regularized and also grant him back-wages with other consequential benefits as per rules within three months. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the 7 impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet