1 2025:CGHC:3301-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 26 of 2025 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- (Respondent No. 1) 2 - The Director, National Cadet Core (State Cell), Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -- (Respondent No. 2) 3 - The Administrative Officer National Cated Core (State Cell), Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). -- (Respondent No. 3) ... Appellants versus Ramgulal Nagvanshi S/o Bhagat Ram Nagvanshi Aged About 38 Years Posted As Lascar In Office Of Commanding Officer - 08, Chhattisgarh Girls Battalion NCC Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocat General For Respondent : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Ms. Shweta ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.20 18:23:17 +0530 2 Rai, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief: “ It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that order dated 23/01/2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2089/2015 parties being “Ramgulal Nagvanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others” may kindly be set aside and consequently the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent herein may kindly be dismissed and the instant writ appeal may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2089 of 2015 (Ramgulal Nagvanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent has been allowed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/respondent before the learned Single Judge is that writ petitioner was appointed as Lascar on the basis of collector rate vide appointment order dated 17th June 1998 and vide order dated 24.6.2003 services of the writ petitioner were regularized on the post of Regular Contingency Lascar on the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-3160-60- 3 3200/- with effect from 1st July 2001 after completion of 3 years services on collector basis w.e.f. 1st July, 1998 as per the MP State Govt. GAD Memo No.16-11881/1/89 dated 9th January, 1990 (Annexure-P/3). On 6.1.2012, respondent No.3 issued an order for not regularizing the services of the daily wages employees and the employees getting salary on collector rate. Services of the writ petitioner were de-regularized and the writ petitioner was being paid as daily wages employee. After the lapse of 9 years, respondent No.2 has passed the order dated 24.2.2012 and fixed the salary of the writ petitioner from regular pay to daily wages. 5. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the appellants, i.e. for setting aside the order dated 24.2.2012 whereby the reduction in rank of the writ petitioner from regular employee to daily wages employee has been made and it was directed not to regularize the persons who have been appointed on the Collector rate or on daily wages after 31st December, 1998 and the matter was pending consideration before the Director as well as directed that arrears shall be released only after such adjudication, the writ petitioner/respondent has preferred a writ petition being WPS No.2089 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.01.2024. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single 4 Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants. 7. Learned State counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law and no disputed question of facts are involved requiring evidence but without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the 5 impugned order while relying upon the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi(3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- “ “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned 6 posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order observing as follows :- “8. In view of the aforesaid, it is explicit that a case of regularization which has attained finality and was not subjudice would not come within the purview of exception to the aforesaid rule and the petitioner’s case would thus fall within the purview thereof, as his services were regularized vide Annexure-P/3 and without complying with the principles of natural justice, a person who has been regularized cannot be deprived to again make contingency employee. 7 9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order and the action of the respondents are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and grant pay in terms of the order dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure-P/3). The arrears shall be calculated and paid within next 4 months after producing the certified copy of this order before the concerned authority, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of this petition i.e. 15.6.2015 till its realization. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition and all the pending applications stand disposed of.”” 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 8 interfere with the impugned order. 13. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu