1 2025:CGHC:56711-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 846 of 2025 1. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Beej Bhawan Ground Floor Ravi Gram Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., (Respondent No. 2) 2. Joint Director Cum Deputy Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board, Bhatapara Division, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 3) 3. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhatapara , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 5) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shailendra Rathore S/o Late Shri Chedilal Rathore Aged About 41 Years R/o Shanti Ward Beside Nagar Palika Bhatapara , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.(Petitioner) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 1) 3. Collector Bhatapara, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24 17:13:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 21.11.2025 1. The appellant/ respondent in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 1721 of 2021 by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal, set aside the impugned judgement dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1721/2021 and grant relief by issuing appropriate writ /order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent herein/writ petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Peon in the Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Raipur, and has been continuously working. Despite completing more than ten years of service, his case for regularization has not been considered, whereas several similarly 3 situated employees, including juniors, have been regularized under the State Government Circular dated 05.03.2008. Thereafter, a representation was filed and the same was rejected by order dated 08.11.2019 against which the writ petition was filled before the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been working with respondents No. 2 & 3 since 1999 and is still in service, and the claim of the petitioner for regularization is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). Accordingly, the order dated 8.11.2019 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed, and respondents No. 2 & 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the said judgment within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of at the admission stage.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Single 4 Judge erred in law by not appreciating the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others vs. State of Jharkhand and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 7423- 7429 of 2018 which directs that employees are entitled to regularization only if they have completed more than ten years of service on the date of promulgation of the regularization rules. The policy for regularization dated 05.03.2008 specifically applies to employees appointed between 01.01.1989 and 31.12.1997. He further submits that the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner had not completed ten years of service as on the date of issuance of the policy, and therefore, was not entitled to consideration for regularization either under the Supreme Court’s judgment or the policy. The appellants, being a statutory body, acted strictly in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government and rejected the respondent’s representation vide order dated 08.11.2019. There was no arbitrariness or illegality in doing so. The respondent No. 1 has also failed to provide any instance of regularization of employees appointed after 31.12.1997, and allowing the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 to stand would open the floodgates for similar claims, thereby frustrating the government’s policy. He further submits that the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner did not challenge any condition of the policy, which is binding on the part and prays that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that he was working in 1999 as a Peon as a daily- rated employee. He further submits that the appellants have applied the regularization policy dated 05.03.2008 in a narrow and mechanical manner, ignoring its purpose. He argues that the judgment in Narendra Kumar Tiwari does not support the appellants’ stand; rather, it stresses that long-serving employees should not be denied regularization due to technicalities. The respondent had been working continuously for many years and was similarly placed to others who were considered for regularization, yet his claim was rejected without proper reasoning. He further submits that the similar matter i.e. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. V Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar (SLP No.25614 of 20214) travelled to Supreme court and the Supreme court has dismissed the petition filed by the State by its order dated 25.10.2024 and affirmed the order passed by this Court in WA No.477/2023 (State of CG & Ors. V Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar). The respondent therefore prays that the appeal be dismissed and the order impugned dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge be upheld. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material placed on record, we find no error in the order passed by 6 the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the respondent/writ petitioner has been continuously working since 1999 and that his claim for regularization is covered by the principles laid down in Narendra Kumar Tiwari, which emphasize fairness towards long-serving daily-rated employees. The appellant’s reliance on the policy dated 05.03.2008 has been applied in a rigid manner, without appreciating its object or the respondent’s long and uninterrupted service. The rejection order dated 08.11.2019 is devoid of proper reasoning and was rightly quashed. The appellant has also failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or misapplication of law in the order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the above, and considering that similar matters have attained finality before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 calls for no interference. 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti