1 2025:CGHC:8330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 390 of 2022 • Bhekram Sahu S/o Late Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years Posted As Assistant Grade III at Tahsil Office Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1258 of 2022 1. Ku. Pushpa Verma D/o Late Ramcharan Verma, Aged About 50 Years Posted As Assistant Grade-3, At Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 2. Mahavir Sahu S/o Late Shri Shriram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-3, At Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3. Kisun Lal Nirmalkar S/o Late Dhani Ram Nirmalkar, Aged About 58 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-3, At Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 4. Punarad Ram Patel S/o Shri Murha Ram Patel, Aged About 52 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-3, At Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 5. Kishore Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Shriram Sahu Aged About 47 Years Posted And Working As Assistant Grade-3, At Collectorate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer 3 made by the petitioners in both the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No. 390/2022 (Bhekram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 12-10-2021 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent authorities to give retrospective effect to the order of regularization of the petitioner i.e. from 21-04-1994, the date on which his juniors have been regularized. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make modification in the order dated 15-10-2020 (Annexure P/4) making the appointment/regularization of the petitioner to be effected from 21-04-1994. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for giving retrospective effect to his regularization w.e.f. 21-04-1994 after considering afresh in the light of direction passed in WA No.178/2016 and 396/2016. 4 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing relief No. 10.1 in WPS No. 1258/2022 by which he has prayed for granting regularization from retrospective effect. He further submits that he is only praying to grant of relief which has been granted to the similarly situated persons of order dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure P/4) i.e. for grant of regularization with retrospective effect. 4. Facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Section Writer on the temporary basis against the vacant post of Section Writer vide order dated 30.01.1985, since then the petitioner is performing his work continuously since the date of appointment without any complaint against him, thus the petitioner has given his services past 35 years to the respondents. Similar situated employees, who are appointed on temporary basis on the post of Section Writer had filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court bearing WPS No. 1959/2014, which was allowed by the order dated 19-11-2015, wherein the Hon'ble Court relying upon the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi and others" reported in 2006 (4) SCC-1 and also relying upon the circular passed by 5 the State Government dated 05.03.2008 and also relying upon the decisions in a similar matter passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and thereby the Hon'ble Single Bench in order dated 19.11.2015 allowed the writ petition passed by the similar situated employees and directed to consider the case for regularization. Against the above order, the State Government filed Writ Appeal No. 178/2016 and the similarly situated petitioners also filed Writ Appeal No.396/2016 seeking regularization with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 13.05.2019, dismissed the writ appeal filed by the State Government affirming the order of the Hon'ble Singh Bench and also directed that the regularization shall be given effect from the date on which his junior has been given benefit of regularization. As the case of the petitioner was similarly situated, he filed the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court which was registered as WPS No. 2652/2020 seeking direction for regularization in the post of Section Writer or any other equal post relying upon the decisions of the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2020 directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of regularization of the petitioner in the post of Section Writer or any other post corresponding to the post of Section Writer and directed to take decision as per the 6 judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court and by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, in the light of the order dated 13.07.2020, the respondent No. 2 issued the order dated 15.10.2020 and the petitioner was regularized/appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III. Subsequently, when the petitioner found that he has not been regularized with the retrospective effect i.e. 21.04.1994, when his juniors were regularized, he made representation on 05.11.2020 to the authority relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in WA No.178/2016 seeking regularization with retrospective effect as directed in the order and also on the count that other similarly situated has been given regularization with retrospective effect and the regularization order dated 15.09.2020 of the similarly situated persons is being filed. The above representation of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 12.10.2021 without appreciating the direction given in WA No.178/2016 and the claim of the petitioner thereby seeking regularization with retrospective effect has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave his service as Section Writer for 35 years and ultimately after the order of the Hon'ble Court in WPS No.2652/2020, the petitioner was regularized/appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III, but his regularization was not given with retrospective 7 effect, though he was entitled for regularization with retrosepctive effect, since his junior was promoted i.e. 21.04.1994 as per the direction issued in WA No. 178/2016 and WA No.396/2016, which specifically directed to make regularization from the date when juniors have been given benefit of regularization. He further submits that a direction was given to the petitioner vide order dated 13.07.2020, wherein the Hon'ble Court had directed to decide the representation after considering the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court and also the MP High Court, but while passing the regularization order dated 15.10.2020, the authorities are not considered the direction passed in WA No. 1278/2016 and 396/2016 though it was brought into the knowledge of the respondent authorities. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for regularization with retrospective effect i.e. since 21.04.1994. He further submits that similarly situated persons were also regularized and they have been given regularization with retrospective effect i.e. 21.04.1994 but the petitioner has been discriminated in the violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the impugned order dated 12-10-2021 (Annexure P-1) is illegal, without application of mind, without appreciating the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in WA No. 178/2016 and WA 396/2016. 8 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 13.07.2020 directing him to file a detailed representation. He further submits that the petitioner was regularized on 15.10.2020. He further submits that the petitioner again made representation for his regularization with retrospective effect. The said representation was rejected by the order dated 12.10.2021 as the petitioner could not claim the said benefit based on the settled law. It is submitted that, prior to regularization, the petitioner was working on temporary basis and as per the order dated 13.07.2020, passed in WPS No. 2652/2020, by the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has been regularized on 15.10.2020, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of regularization only from 15/10/2020. The petitioner is not eligible for the benefits of regularization with retrospective effect because prior to regularization, the petitioner was working on temporary basis and as per the order dated 13.07.2020, passed in WPS No. 2652/2020 by the Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has been regularized on 15.10.2020, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of regularization from 15.10.2020. The Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 1959/2014 has also clarified the issue. 10. in view of the submissions made as above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Hon'ble Court against the answering 9 respondents. Thus, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The MP High Court in its order dated 5-3-2010 passed in WP No.2762/2010 (Bhupendra Kumar Dharya v. State of M.P. & Another) followed the order passed by the SAT in Ram Bahadur Sharma (supra), which, in turn, was decided on the basis of the order passed by the SAT in OA filed by the petitioners. Another order of similar nature was passed by the MP High Court on 5-3- 2010 in WP No.2763/2010 (Ramshankar Chourasia v. State of M.P. & Another). 9. Since it is the settled law that the order of regularization should be prospective and not retrospective, the petitioners are not entitled for consequential reliefs. (See: the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Sheela Rani reported in (2007) 15 SCC 230 and the decision of this Court in Nand Kumar Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others decided on 25-8-2015 in WPL No. 197 of 2013). 10. Consequently, the relief prayed by the petitioners for grant of benefit of regularization with retrospective effect can not be granted. The petitioners have already been regularized with prospective date. 10 11. As a sequel, the writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat