1 2025:CGHC:53156-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 692 of 2025 Nehru Lal Saral S/o Shri Dhowa Ram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Lara, Post- Kodpali P.S. Pussore District- Raigarh (C.G.) (Appellant) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) Now District- Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G) 4 - The District Education Officer Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) Now District- Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Baramkela District- Raigarh (C.G.) Now District- Bilaigarh-Sarangarh (C.G) 6 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.31 18:34:03 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents on I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. an application for condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4631 of 2021 (Nehrul Lal Sawral Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein holding that, regularization should be prospective and not retrospective. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as a contingency employee/peon on 04.01.1997 on ad- hoc basis and continued to discharge duties satisfactorily without any adverse remark. His services were repeatedly extended for 89-day periods and subsequently regularized on 16.02.2009. After regularization, the writ petitioner claimed benefit of regular pay scale and seniority from the date of initial appointment, relying upon the judgments of the State Administrative Tribunal in Satish 3 Kumar Mandloi vs. State of M.P. and orders of this Hon’ble Court granting similar benefits to similarly situated employees. However, the respondents denied such benefits and rejected his representation despite departmental orders granting the same relief to other employees appointed after 1988. The petitioner assailed such denial in WPS No. 9770/2019, wherein this Court directed him to submit a detailed representation and directed the respondents to decide the same within 90 days. In compliance, the writ petitioner filed representation, yet respondent No. 4 rejected it solely on the ground that he was appointed after 1988, ignoring binding judicial precedents and departmental circulars. Thereafter, WPS No. 4631/2021 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge without appreciating the law and documents, despite the issue having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. State of M.P. (SLP (C) Nos. 8613-8614/2022, decided on 31.01.2025) holding that similarly placed Grade-IV employees are entitled to regular pay scale upon completion of 3 years of service. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and law. It is urged that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that respondent No. 3 has previously issued orders dated 16.03.2015, 03.02.2018, 23.01.2019 and 02.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) granting regular pay scale after 4 completion of three years of service to employees appointed after 1988, and the present case is squarely covered by the State Government order dated 15.12.1992 concerning grant of regular salary after completion of three years of service. It is further submitted that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, all directions/notifications issued by the then State were duly adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the orders dated 10.05.1984 and 15.12.1992, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31.01.2025 in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., are fully applicable to the appellant, who was appointed in 1995, particularly when similarly situated employees appointed in 1996 and thereafter have been extended the benefit of regular pay on completion of three years. Despite the appellant placing all relevant documents and binding precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirming the entitlement of Grade-IV employees to regular pay scale on completion of three years, the learned Single Judge dismissed the claim without proper consideration. It is contended that there exists no legal provision to deny regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment, as held by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1979/1991 (Satish Kumar Mandloi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and affirmed in subsequent judgments of this Hon’ble Court, and numerous employees have already been granted such benefit. The action of the respondents, upheld by the learned 5 Single Judge, is therefore violative of Articles 14, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikau K. Dhand and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others (2004) 13 SCC 707, Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Swaran Singh (2005) 13 SCC 246 and in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230 and held that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as chances of their upsetting the seniority of regular appointees cannot be overlooked. In the case before the Supreme Court, the concerned employee was engaged as casual worker on 17/11/1982 and was regularized w.e.f. 26/09/2001 and her claim for regularization from the date of initial appointment was rejected 6 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Regularization from a particular date has several aspects on which the order is passed since it depends on availability of post in a particular office, inter se seniority of persons working on casual basis/daily wagers and seniority of regular appointees. In the light of the above judgments of Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge opined that to pass an order of regularization from a particular date is basically a policy decision and this court need not interfere in such matters unless a right has accrued in favour of the employees to be regularized from a particular date which is taken to be cut-off date by the government. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered 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 infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet