1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2055 of 2017 Panchram Rathore, S/o Jhabbu Rathore, Aged About 46 Years, Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Peon, In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division Marwahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Mob. No.9575665984 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Development Commissioner Chhattisgarh Raipur, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Bilaspur Circle Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division Marwahi, Head Quarter Pendra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. appears along with Mr. Sachhidanand Yadav, P.L. 2 Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner’s case, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 passed by respondent no.3, whereby the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services has been rejected, and command and direct the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioner’s service. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Peon on 01.08.1991 by Block Development Officer, Gourela and, thereafter, in the year 1993, his service was transferred in the office of Rural Engineering Services and he is continuously performing his duty as such without any break. It is alleged further that in pursuance to the Circular, bearing No. F12- 1/2007/1-3, dated 05.03.2008, the Respondent No.5-Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division, Marwahi, vide its letter dated 01.07.2008 has recommended his name for 3 regularization, however, no decision was taken, therefore, he was constrained to approach this court for the redressal of his grievance, while filing the petition, being WP(S) No.715 of 2017. In the said writ petition, this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure P/16) directed the concerned respondent authorities to consider his case for regularization, in accordance with the Circular (Annexure P/3), issued on 05.03.2008. In pursuance to the said direction, the petitioner has submitted his representation before the concerned authorities, however, vide order impugned dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure P/1), his claim has been refused while referring to clause B(2)(iii) of the said Circular. In support, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed his reliace upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the matter of Jaggo versus Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. 3. The respondents, in their written has contested the aforesaid claim, submitting inter alia, that the Circular dated 05.03.2008 was applicable to only those daily wages/ad-hoc appointees, who were appointed not in an illegal manner on or before 31.12.1997 and have performed their duties continuously without any interruption till the date of consideration for the regularization. It is contested further on the ground that since the petitioner, as per the official record, was not in continuous in his service every year as there is break in service for more than a month, therefore, he is not entitled to be regularized by virtue of the said Circular, issued on 05.03.2008. As such, his claim has rightly been rejected. 4 4. What is, therefore, reflected from the averments made in the petition, vis-a-vis, the documents annexed, that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon, vide order dated 01.10.1991 for the period of 89 days and no appointment order was, thereafter, issued in his favour, nor even the plea has been taken to this effect. He, therefore, appears to work as such in clandestine manner even without any appointment order. 5. Insofar as, the principles laid down in the matter of Jaggo versus Union of India and Others (supra), is concerned, the same is, however, distinguishable from the facts involved herein. As in the said matter, the appellants were appointed either on part-time or ad- hoc basis and worked for the requisite period, as required, and, therefore, they have been held to be regularized. However, in the instant matter, no appointment order was issued after 01.10.1991 and the petitioner was, thus, found to be performed his duties continuous in a surreptitious and/ or in clandestine manner. 6. In view of the aforesaid background, the petitioner would not be entitled to be regularized on the basis of the said Circular, dated 05.03.2008, so as to call for any interference in the order impugned refusing his claim for regularisation. 5. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Arpan