1 2025:CGHC:12539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9263 of 2022 1 - Sunil Kumar Khandey S/o Late Shri Harakh Lal Khandey Aged About 50 Years Working As Driver (On Collector Rate As Daily Wager Employee) At Office Of Collector ( Food Branch ), District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Food ( Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Directorate, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector (Food) (Being A Court Of Collector District - Koriya Baikunthpur (C.G.) ), Office Of Collector Koriya District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Food Officer, Office Of Collector Food Branch Koriya District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Dy. GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.18 10:33:11 +0530 2 17/03/2025 1. Challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the order dated 13/10/2022 (Annexure-P/12) passed by respondent No.3/Collector, Koriya Baikunthpur (C.G.), whereby respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of his regularization on completion of 10 years of service. 2. (i) Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Driver in department of respondent no. 03 and 04 as daily wager and has completed more than 17 year of continuous service. The petitioner having all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of driver i.e. having 10th pass and driving license. Prior to working in the Department of respondent no. 3 and 4, the petitioner had already worked in the office of Assistant Project officer District Rural Development Agency of State Government at Ambikapur and Baikunthpur (Now called the Drastic Panchayat) since March 1990 till February 2000 to the post of Driver under the work charged as temporary basis. (ii) According to the petitioner, one post of driver at office of the respondent no 3 and 4 i.e. office of Collector Food Department Dist- Koriya C.G. is sanctioned and is still lying vacant since 2005. Against the said sanctioned and vacant post of driver vide order date 30-09-2005, the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Driver for the period of 89 days (i.e. from 15-09-2005 till 13-12-2005) on collector rate as daily wager. It is pertinent to mention here that said service period of the 3 petitioner has regularly extended from time to time with artificial break of one day in service and since then he is continuously working on the said post as Daily Wages Employee and he has completed more than about 17 years of service as a daily wager. The petitioner is working against the said vacant post, since 2005 till date and the salary has also been drawn by the petitioner against the said vacant post. The petitioner had submitted his detailed representation to the respondent authorities for considering his case for regular appointment on the post of Driver as he had already completed 10 years of service, however, when the same was not decided, the petitioner again submitted a representation along with copy of order dated 13/06/2022, instead of considering the claim of the petitioner for his regularization on administrative side, respondent No. 3 being Court of Collector registered the representation/case of the petitioner as Revenue Case No. 202209010100006/B-121/2021-22 and passed the order impugned in illegal and arbitrary manner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is a 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 petitioner is also entitled for regularization of his services on the post of Driver. 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 4 Chhattisgarh1 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner has not been engaged with the present department prior to 31/12/1997, he is not at all entitled for regularization as per circular dated 05/03/2008. 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 and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others2 held in para 11 as under: "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. In the present case, the respondent authorities in the impugned order (Annexure P/12) have written in the second last paragraph that the petitioner was working since 15/09/2005, so at the time of passing the impugned order, the petitioner had completed 10 years of service but they did not regularize his services. Therefore, it is clear from all the documents that the respondent authorities did not follow the aforesaid 1 WPS No. 4293 of 2012 (decided on 10/02/2023 2 Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (decided on 01/08/2018) 5 directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the matter of regularization of services of the petitioner. 8. 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 and the impugned order dated 13/10/2022 (Annexure P/12) is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to again inspect the muster roll and all records when the services of other daily wagers were regularized. If the case of the petitioner is also found to be similar to those daily wagers whose services were regularized, his services be also regularized from the same date with all consequential benefits. 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/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul