1 2025:CGHC:33759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2438 of 2020 1 - Shyamasay S/o Shri Dev Singh Halba Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Ward No. 11, Salhetola, Tahsil- Dondi Lohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balod District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chairman Scrutiny Committee Balod/Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Balod District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Under Secretary State Of C.G. Department Of Forest Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2465 of 2020 1 - Hemant Rao Sonteke S/o Late Shri N.B. Sonteke Aged About 50 Years R/o Sadhu Chal Tulsipur Ward No. 18 Budh Vihar Gali No. 01, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 17:32:22 +0530 2 5 - Chairman Scrutiny Committee Manpur/Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Under Secretary State Of C.G. Department Of Forest Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2948 of 2016 1 - Rajendra Sharma S/o Bachhan Sharma, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Banbaghera, P.S. Somani, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Arenya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - The President, Daily Wages Scrutiny Committee, Forest Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - The President, Daily Wages Scrutiny Committee, Forest Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - The President , Daily Wages Scrutiny Committee, Forest Division Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 9 - Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Sub Forest Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 17/07/2025 3 WPS No.2948/2016 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole petitioner namely; Rajendra Sharma has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, permission may be granted to withdraw the instant writ petition with liberty to file fresh better constituted petition. 2. Learned State counsel submits no objection with regard to withdrawal of the instant petition. 3. In view of above, the instant petition bearing WPS No.2948/2016, is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. WPS No.2438/2020 and WPS No.2465/2020 1. Heard. 2. Since issue involved in both the writ petitions is similar, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 3. Both the writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of Annexure P1 and Annexure P10 (in both petitions) and for their regularization in service. 4. Case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is that petitioners namely; Shyamasay and Hemant Rao Sonteke were appointed as daily wage employees in the year 1988 and 1993 respectively, in the Forest Division, Balod/ Rajnandgaon (C.G.), respectively, thereafter, they are continuously serving with the respondent Department, but, based on the government circular dated 05.3.2008 (Annexure P12) for regularization of daily wage employee, the petitioners have been declined benefit. Hence, these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after passing of 4 judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, petitioners are entitled for regularization in service, but, respondent Authorities are not considering their case for regularization. He further submits that the State Government, on the basis of decision in Umadevi’s case (Supra) has issued a circular dated 05.3.2008 (Annexure P12), based on which, various daily wage employees have been regularized, but, petitioners have been declined benefit of that circular. Whereas petitioners are also entitled to be regularized as they are serving the respondent Department for more than 25 years. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 and also in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the persons, who are in continuous service for more than 10 years, are required to be regularised and for that, the benefit of one time recruitment could not come into the way. Hence, he submits that respondents may be directed to consider the case of petitioners for their regularization in service. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to its reply submits that on the basis of circular dated 05.3.2008 (Annexure P12), issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, various daily wagers have been regularized, but, as petitioners were not fulfilling the criteria of the circular, they have not been regularized. However, he submits that petitioners are still working with the respondent / Department. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 5 available on record of writ petitions. 8. In the matter of Umadevi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that persons who are in continuous service for last 10 years are required to be regularized. Similarly, in the matter of Vinod Kumar (Supra) while considering the entitlement of temporary employees to regularization in service, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “7. The judgment in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N. Nanjundappa [R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 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 the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation 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 abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and 6 their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise 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 the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned 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 regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” (emphasis in original) 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations. 9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment [Vinod Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016 SCC OnLine All 4489] of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularisation in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularisation within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.” 9. In the case of Jaggo (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again observed that the persons in continuous/ long period of service for more than 10 years are required to be regularized. Relevant portion of Jaggo (Supra) is extracted below for ready reference:- 7 “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a 8 selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment 9 practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the 10 judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to 11 bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by 12 example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 10. Long service of daily wage employees is the backbone for complete working of the department, using them for more than 20-25 years in low salary, amounts to their exploitation. Considering such fate of the daily wage employees, who are serving for long period in the Government Departments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is continuously observing and issuing direction that service of such employees be regularized. 11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforecited cases, if the cases of the petitioners are considered, then it is found that petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees in the year 1988 and 1993 respectively, subsequently they were removed from service in the year 2000 and 2004 respectively. Thereafter, they were reinstated in the year 2012 and 2013 respectively, in compliance of order passed by the Labour Court. Thus, they served with the respondent Department in two phases. In both the phases they have 13 completed service period for more than 10 years and their complete service period with the respondent Department is more than 20 years. In that view of the matter, and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, declining regularization of service of the petitioners by the respondent Authorities is not found to be legal and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforecited cases, hence, Annexure P1 (in both the cases) are quashed and on the strength of above discussion Annexure P10 is also not found/ held to be hurdle on the way of regularization of the service of the petitioners. 12. In view of above discussion, the cases of petitioners are found fit for their regularization in service, therefore, I feel inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioners. 13. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to complete the process of regularization of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order. 14. Certified copy as per rules. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ayushi