1 2025:CGHC:50787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 733 of 2025 Videshi Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Narayan Lal Patel Aged About 66 Years R/o Shrawan Gali, Chandmari Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretory Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raigarh Division District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.10. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.14 11:01:21 +0530 2 Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 156 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 156 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of order dated 20/02/2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2046/2019. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2046/2019 by this Hon'ble Court. iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which deem fits by this Hon'ble Court.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2046/2019 (Videshi Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. 3 5. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as contingency daily wage employee/time keeper in the years 1988, on ad-hoc basis against vacant posts under the respondent authorities. However, vide order dated 21.04.2008, his employment was regularised, but he was not extended the benefit of regular pay scale, seniority, and other consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.2046/2019, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.02.2025. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.2046/2019, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra, as the identical matter has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of regular pay scale on completion of three years of their regular service. It is further submitted that the 4 controversy in the present case pertains to the grant of regular pay scale on completion of three years of regular service in accordance with the State Government’s order dated 15.12.1992. After the bifurcation of the State, all notifications, orders, and circulars issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, including the Government Orders dated 10.05.1984 and 15.12.1992, have been duly adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the same benefits as extended to his counterparts in the erstwhile State. 8. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Charmakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others in SLP (C) Nos. 8613–8614 of 2022, decided on 31.01.2025, wherein the Apex Court categorically held that Grade-IV employees are entitled to regular pay scale upon completion of three years of regular service. It is submitted that despite specific reliance on the said judgment during the course of hearing, the learned Single Bench has failed to consider the same and erroneously held that regularization shall operate prospectively and not retrospectively. It is further contended that there exists no provision under the applicable service rules or government orders which denies regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment, and in fact, the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), in O.A. No. 1979/1991 – Satish Kumar Mandloi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, as well as this Court in several other cases, has granted the benefit of 5 regular pay scale and seniority from the initial date of appointment. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent authorities, and the affirmation thereof by the learned Single Bench, is violative of Articles 14, 21, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, as it results in unequal treatment of similarly placed employees. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be granted regular pay scale, seniority, and all consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment, in parity with similarly situated employees. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Bench is in accordance with law and facts. It is contended that regularization and grant of pay scale from the initial date of appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and such benefits are subject to government rules and policy. It is further submitted that the orders relied upon by the appellant, including the judgment in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar (supra) are not applicable to the present facts, as the services of the appellant were initially on ad-hoc/contingency basis and regularization was granted only with effect from the date specified in the regularization order. Learned counsel emphasizes that the principle of granting retrospective benefits to all similarly placed employees is not automatic and requires express sanction, which is absent in the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order holding that regularization shall operate prospectively is legally valid and 6 deserves to be upheld. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2046/2019. 11. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, Registrar General of India & Another v. Thippa Setty & Others, (1998) 8 SCC 690, Union of India & Others v. Sheela Rani, (2007) 15 SCC 230, M. Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298 as well as Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, (1990) 4 SCC 24, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “8. Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed as contingency daily wages employee in the respondent-department. It seems that their services were regularised in the years 2005 & 2008 respectively in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. As per their regularisation order (Annexure -P/2), they were being paid regular pay scale after their regularisation. 7 9. Now, the petitioners are claiming retrospective regular pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. The ordinary meaning of regularisation is “to make regular” and the effect of such regularisation would depend on the object or purpose for which the regularisation is made or the stage at which it is made. Once employee regularised, the procedural infirmities which attended the appointment are cured. In instant cases, it has not been demonstrated that the petitioners were initially appointed by following procedure applicable at the time of their appointment. 10. The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer resintegra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another vs. V. Thippa Setty & Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 690 and it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinary be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under : “2. …………It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a 8 sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.” 11. Similarly, in Union of India & Others v. 9 Sheela Rani reported in (2007) 15 SCC 230, the principles of law laid down in V. Thippa Setty (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court with approval and held in para 11 as under : “11. In Registrar General of India & Anr. Vs. V. Thippa Setty & Ors. (supra), the Tribunal's direction was to regularize the respondents w.e.f. the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment depending on the seniority list. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11.5.1985, the regularization was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19.2.1993, the Tribunal had directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status w.e.f. 5.2.1981 i.e. the date of their entry into service as Investigators. This Court held that the employees had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficient long time. If the ad hoc service is regularized from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularization must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. This 10 Court ordered that care must be taken to see that regularization do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked.” 12. In the matter of M. Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298 it has been held by their Lordships that the grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules. In the matter of Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (1990) 4 SCC 24 considering the Rules of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Rule 7, it has been held relying upon the earlier decisions that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority. 13. Reverting to the cases in hand, it is not apparent from the record that petitioners were initially appointed on the sanctioned post in accordance with the procedure applicable at that time. They were appointed as contingency daily wages employee for fixed remuneration. As has been stated 11 earlier that it seems that they were regularised in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Since no good cases of petitioners are found to grant them regular pay scale from the initial appointment and further instant petitions have been filed after huge delay of more than 14 – 10 years, as such, I do not find any good ground to allow these petitions. 14. In view of above discussion, petitions fail, as such, the same are dismissed. No order as to cost(s).” 12. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length and after a careful perusal of the record, including the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2046/2016, it is apparent that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as a contingency daily wage employee/time keeper on ad-hoc basis, and regularisation of his services was effected only vide order dated 21.04.2008. The appellant claims retrospective grant of regular pay scale, seniority, and other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment. 13. Upon a careful examination of the record, the applicable government orders, and relevant judicial precedents, it is observed that: • The principle of regularisation of ad-hoc/contingency 12 employees has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to ordinarily operate prospectively and not retrospectively, to protect the seniority and service rights of regular appointees. The judgments in Uma Devi (supra), Thippa Setty (supra), Sheela Rani (supra), M. Janardhan (supra) and Masood Akhtar Khan (supra), establish that retrospective regularisation is permissible only where the initial appointment was made in accordance with rules or where there is express statutory or policy sanction. • In the present case, the appellant’s initial appointment as contingency daily wage employee was not made against a sanctioned post in accordance with the prescribed procedure applicable at the relevant time. The services were irregular, ad-hoc, and contingent in nature, and thus, there is no legal foundation for claiming regular pay scale and seniority from the date of initial appointment. • The appellant’s claim relies on judgments and government orders applicable to similarly placed employees in other contexts. However, the facts herein differ, as the appellant’s service commenced on ad-hoc terms and the regularisation was effected only after a significant period. Further, the writ petition has been filed after a long delay of more than 10–14 years from the date of regularisation, which militates against the grant of retrospective benefits. 13 • The record does not disclose any compelling circumstances, violation of statutory provisions, or contravention of Articles 14, 21, or 39(d) of the Constitution that would warrant interference with the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has rightly applied the settled legal principles regarding prospective effect of regularisation to prevent disruption of seniority of regular appointees and maintain administrative discipline. 14. In light of the foregoing, the writ appeal is dismissed, and the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2046/2019 is upheld. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu