1 2025:CGHC:52759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5678 of 2016 1 - Syed Ashique Ali S/o Shri Riyazat Ali, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 10 Shakti Nagar, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Sharma, S/o Shri Laxman Prasad Sharma, Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Peon, Kawardha, Forest Division, R/o Village Mainpur, Post Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Chatur Singh Nishad, S/o Shri Vishram Nishad, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon, Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 13, Ambagarh Chowki, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Anil Kumar Namdev S/o Shri Sumiran Namdev, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 19, Civil Lines, Khairagarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mohammad Shadiq Qureshi, S/o Shri M. S. Qureshi, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mukesh Singh Rajput, S/o Late M. S. Rajput, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 1, Khairagarh Road, Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - Koushal Singh Rajput, S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Rajput, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Post Gendatola, Tahsil Chhuria, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Yashwant Kumar Verma, S/o Shri Deendayal Verma, Aged About 48 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 13, Ambagarh Chowki, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 9 - Rajendra Singh Rajput, S/o Late M. S. Rajput, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 1, Khairagarh Road, Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 10 - Ramesh Kumar Namdev, S/o Shri Kanhaiyyalal Namdev, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Civil Lines, Ward No. 19, Khairgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 11 - Toprao Bamanthede, S/o Shri Bhiggar Bamanthede, Aged About 48 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Village Ghortalav, Post Sadakchirchari, Tahsil Churia, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.10.30 13:48:11 +0530 2 12 - Vijay Singh Bais S/o Shri Amardhan Singh, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Forest Colony, Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 13 - Rai Singh Sinha, S/o Shri Palturam Sinha, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Village Rahmankapa, Post Munmuna, Tahsil Pandaria, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 14 - Yogendra Sharma, S/o Shri Sonu Sharma, Aged About 52 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Village Bodela, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 15 - Manohar Soni, S/o Shri Chhedilal Soni, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Karpatri Park, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 16 - Vikram Nishad, S/o Shri Jangalu Nishad, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Forest Division Office, Kawarda, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 17 - Santosh Singh Rajput, S/o Shri Umendra Singh Rajput, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Shikshak Nagar, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 18 - Nityaranjan Sharma, S/o Shri Sonu Lal Sharma, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 15, Forest Colony, Gandai, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 19 - Bhulau Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Parma Yadav, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Kabir Para, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 20 - Babulal Yadav, S/o Shri Kangalu Yadav, Aged About 36 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Forest Division Office, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 21 - Chandra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Samaru Ram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Conservator Of Forest, Circle Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate 3 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ setting aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2016 (Annexure P/1) and directing the respondent authorities to re-consider the case of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. 10(iii)That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioners on Class III post considering the seniority as per their date of birth in accordance with Clause 2(ix) of the Circular dated 5.3.2008. 10(iv)Any other relief of relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts, in brief are that the petitioners were working under the respondents as daily rated employees prior to March 2008. A Circular was issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 to consider the cases of the daily rated employees for regularization. The services of the petitioners were considered for regularization and their services were regularized against sanctioned and vacant Class IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008. The Conservator of Forest, Circle Durg vide letter dated 07.10.2008 instructed the Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh, Forest Division to consider the cases of daily rated employees for regularization pursuant to award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon on the basis of their educational qualification. On 07.10.2008 another office memo was issued by the Conservator Forest Circle Durg to the Divisional Forest Officer, 4 Khairagarh to consider the names of daily rated employees appointed prior to 1988 against sanctioned and vacant Class III posts of Forest Guards. Consequently, the daily rated employees who were having requisite qualification were appointed to the post of Forest Guards vide orders dated 07.10.2010, 08.10.2010, 28.10.2010, 11.11.2010 and 10.01.2011. Surguja Forest Circle Ambikapur also appointed daily rated employees against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards vide order dated 19.09.2008. A letter was issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest Chhattisgarh, Raipur dated 30.09.2013 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department, Raipur to provide list of Wireless Operators/Peons/Chowkidars for conversion of their status against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards, but no decision was taken. The petitioners and similarly situated employees filed WPS No. 7526/2011 and WPS No. 7777/2011 wherein they sought prayer for regularization against sanctioned and vacant Class III posts pursuant to Clause 2 of Circular dated 05.03.2008. Both the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2016 reserving liberty in favor of the petitioners to make representation(s) before the Secretary, Department of Forest and the said authority was directed to decide it within period of 06 months. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.07.2016 rejected the representation(s) made by the petitioners on the ground that according to Clause 2 (VII), the claim for regularization can be considered against sanctioned and vacant post as a one time measure. It is also observed that there is no rule or instruction with regard to conversion of the posts from Class IV to Class III. The petitioners have challenged the said order by filing this petition. 5 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that initially claims of the petitioners for regularization were considered pursuant to Circular dated 05.03.2008 and services of the petitioners were regularized against Class IV posts. He would contend that the services of the similarly situated daily rated employees were regularized against the sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards looking to their educational qualification. He would submit that the petitioners were having requisite qualification for the posts of Forest Guards, but their names were not considered. He would submit that the respondent authorities passed orders for regularization of services of other daily rated employees to the post of Forest Guards on 07.10.2010, 08.10.2010, 28.10.2010, 11.11.2010 and 10.01.2011. He would contend that the action on the part of respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory. He would submit that the respondent authorities have adapted dual standard to regularize services of daily rated employees. He would submit that the order Annexure P/1 may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claims of the petitioners for regularization against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State would oppose. He would contend that the decision for regularization of services of the petitioners were taken as a one time measure pursuant to Circular dated 05.03.2008. He would submit that on 29.08.2008, Class IV posts were available with the department and therefore, the petitioners were offered regularization of their services and they had accepted it without raising objections. He would submit that the 6 petitioners claimed regularization to the Class III posts after 03 years by filing Writ Petitions No. 7526/2011 and 7777/2011 without explaining delay. He would further submit that the department of Forest sought opinion from the General Administration Department and in turn, it was informed that there is no rule or instruction to change the status of employees whose services have already been regularized. He would contend that the representation(s) made by the petitioners have been decided by respondent No. 1 by speaking order, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The petitioners were working as daily rated employees. Their services were regularized pursuant to Circular dated 05.03.2008. The orders were issued on 29.08.2008 and without any demur those orders were accepted by the petitioners. Subsequently, the department regularized the services of other daily rated employees against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards and thereafter the petitioners and similarly situated persons filed two Writ Petitions No. 7526/2011 and 7777/2011. Both the petitions were disposed of reserving liberty in favor of the petitioners to prefer representation(s). The petitioners preferred representation(s) and respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) rejected on the ground that there is no rule or provisions to change the status or cadre of regular employees. 7. Clause 2 (i) of the Circular dated 05.03.2008 states that claim of regularization of daily rated employees would be considered against sanctioned and vacant regular posts, if the candidate fulfills requisite eligibility criteria. Clause 2 (viii) states that the daily rated employees 7 shall be considered regular employees from date of issuance of orders and their names would be placed at the bottom in the seniority list. Clause 4 states that the claim of regularization shall be considered as a one time measure. The services of the petitioners were regularized against sanctioned and vacant Class IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008 and thereafter the respondent authorities according to vacancy and sanctioned strength considered names of other daily rated employees against Class III posts and that action of the State Authorities would not give fresh cause of action to the petitioners to claim regularization on Class III posts as they had already accepted offer of regularization. The claims of the petitioners were considered according to Circular dated 05.03.2008 and it is specifically stated in Clause 4 that the consideration for regularization would be as a one time measure. The petitioners were aware of the fact that their names were not considered for regularization according to their educational qualification, but they did not file writ petitions within reasonable time. The action of respondent authorities, whereby services of the petitioners were regularized, was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and the entire exercise was completed by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with Circular dated 05.03.2008. 8. Mr. Prateek Sharma has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jivanlal Vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and Others reported in (2016)15 SCC 747. In the aforesaid matter, the names of the some of the employees were considered for regularization after completion of 10 years of required services, whereas the name of the petitioner - Jivanlal was not considered, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the 8 respondent authorities to grant similar treatment. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of cited case. 9. In the present case, claims of the petitioners with regard to regularization were considered and services of the petitioners were confirmed against Class IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008 but they are claiming regularization against Class III posts, which is not permissible according to circular dated 5.3.2008. 10. Taking into consideration above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P/1). 11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti