1 2025:CGHC:59593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9620 of 2023 1 - Vrinda Prasad Pal S/o Itwar Ram Pal Aged About 49 Years Posted As Squadman (Daily Wages), Collectorate Office (Land Record), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralay Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector (Land Record) Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and regularize his services without any further delay. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a daily wager on the post of Squadman (Daily Wager) from 01.04.1998 and was working with respondent No.3. He had submitted an application for regularization of his services in light of the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 as the services of some of his juniors were regularized but the respondent authorities did not accept his application. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.1115/2019 wherein this Hon’ble Court passed an order on 20.02.2019 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the circular dated 5.3.2008 issued by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible. But the respondent authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner and rejected the claim for regularization on 23.03.2019 communicated on 04.11.2022 itself. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: ; “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 23/03/2019 along with order dated 04/11/2022 (Annexure P/1 [colly]) issued by the Under Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Raipur, C.G. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regularisation of services of the 3 petitioner w.e.f. 01/04/2008 along with back wages and arrears. 10.3. That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioner” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature and also violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a daily wager working on the post of Squadman since 01.04.1998. The State Government regularized the services of similarly situated daily wage employees on the basis of circular dated 05.03.2008, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services on the post of Squadman. In compliance of the circular dated 05.03.2008 the State Government directed to regularize the services of those persons who were working prior to 31.12.1997 on daily wages basis, even then the respondent authorities have not regularized the services of the petitioner and instead directed the petitioner to submit certified copy of the documents regarding his working since 1998. All such documents are with the respondent authorities and even then they directed the petitioner to submit such documents which shows that they are deliberately and willfully not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization in light of the circular dated 5.3.2008. 4 4. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01st August, 2018 in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 and the judgment in the matter of R.M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer reported in 2005 AIR SCW 6103. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would submit that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, his representation for regularization dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P/5) has been rejected on well reasoned ground vide impugned order dated 23.09.2019 communicated on 04.11.2022. Since the petitioner has not been engaged with the department prior to 31.12.1997, he is not at all entitled for regularization as per circular dated 05.03.2008. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In WPS No.1115/2019 this Court vide order dated 30.02.2019 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others (supra) and the circular dated 5.3.2008 issued by the respondents as expeditiously as possible. 8. The petitioner filed an application on 28.02.2019 & 01.06.2022 (Annexures P/5 & P/6) seeking regularization of his services on 5 the ground that he is working since 01.04.1998 but the respondent authorities dismissed his claim by the impugned order dated 23.03.2019 on the ground that as per office record, he was not working since 01.04.1998, therefore, he was not entitled for regularization. 9. In the previous writ petition i.e. WPS No.1115/2019, it was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a daily wager after 1.1.1989 and before 31.12.1997. This submission of the petitioner was not rebutted by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has also filed his application dated 28.02.2019 to the Respondent No.2 for regularization of his services vide Annexures P/5 & P/6 wherein he stated to have been working with the department since 01.04.1998. 10. In the matter of R.M. Yellatti (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 17 of the judgment as under: “17. Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is 6 discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non- production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case.” 7 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) held in para 11 as under: “11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc. 12. In the present case, the respondent authorities in the impugned order (Annexure P/1) have written in the last paragraph that the petitioner was working since 01.04.1998, so at the time of passing the impugned order, the petitioner had completed 10 years of service but they did not regularize his services. Therefore, it is clear from all the documents that the respondent authorities did not follow the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the matter of regularization of services of the petitioner. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subject-matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.03.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to again inspect the muster roll 8 and all records of 01.04.2008 till completion of 10 years when the services of other daily wagers were regularized. If the case of the petitioner is also found to be similar to those daily wagers whose services were regularized by Annexure P/3, his services be also regularized from the same date with all consequential benefits, or immediately after completion of 10 years of his services, the same be regularized from 01.04.2008 with all consequential benefits. It is also directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena