1 2025:CGHC:6213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 966 of 2025 1 - Rasid Mohammed S/o Late Shri Sharif Mohammed Aged About 58 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Behind Gulab Colony, Ambikapur, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer State Bridge Construction, Public Works Department, Ambikapur District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.03.26 16:24:41 +0530 2 04/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel petitioner as well as Mr. S. S. Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities to consider the case of Petitioner is regarding regularization on the post of Labour in pursuance of circular dated 05.03.2008. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to directed Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization taking into account of seniority. 10.3 That the cost of the petition be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated through this petition is that even though the petitioner is continuing as daily wage employee since long, his claim for regularization has not been decided till date. It is submitted that petitioner was appointed s daily wager on the post of Roller Driver from 01.11.1990. He is working with respondent authority in the Office of Sub Divisional, State Bridge Construction, Ambikapur, District – Surguja and the respondent authority has not regularized the service of the petitioner. Some juniors to the petitioner have been regularized. Order of termination has been challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court, the same has been registered bearing case No. 3 93/IDAct/2004/Reference Learned Court below has passed an order 31/10/2022 and directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service within a period of two moths with 25% back-wages. In pursuant of the order of the Learned Labour Court respondent has reinstated the petitioner and petitioner is working with the Respondents department. The respondent state has filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Court and challenging the order of Labour Court. As the petitioner has already completed 335 years of service. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 has observed that, the employee who has completed 10 years of services. They are entitled for regularization on their respective post. If the employees have completed 10 years of service of the regularization rules ought to be given benefit of service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service, they should be regularized, In this case petitioner completed more than 10 years of service. In the light of the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court petitioner is entitled for regularization. In compliance of the Circular of State Govt. dated 05/03/2008 Respondent Authority regularizes the services of the employees who are junior to the Petitioner and other similarly situated employees, however, the petitioners were illegally not regularized. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and it has been submitted that since the service of the petitioner was already been 4 terminated and he was reinstated by the Labour Court, there is gap in the service as such, the petitioner can not claim regularization. 5. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and have considered the rival submissions as also the records of the case. 6. Recently in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 the Supreme Court has reiterated necessity of regularization for Class III and Class IV employees based on Uma Devi’s (supra) case. Further State Government has also issued circular dated 05.03.2008, according to which the regularization of Class III and Class IV employees were directed to be considered. Since the petitioners were working in the concerned department as Sweeper/Cleaner for last 25 to 30 years. They are low paid employees and after serving for 25 to 30 years with the respondent authorities, it would be unjustified to leave them on their fate. The respondent State has also passed circular dated 05.03.2008 on the basis of which the State authorities are required to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of there service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also passed various orders in the matter of regularization of employment to the petitioners as the appointment of the present petitioners can be classified as “irregular” but can not be termed as illegal. The same has also been discussed in the case of Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, (Supra) 5 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 13, 14, 15 and 16 as under : 13. By requiring the same tasks (planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice. The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements. 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer’s failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine 6 contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India (Supra)” in the following paragraphs: “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 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. ……… 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 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 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 labelled 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 7 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 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.” 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: “the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at 8 eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.” 7. This Court has passed an order in case no. WP(S) No. 2953/2020 on dated 05/08/2020, in which Hon'ble Court has passed an order in similar case and directed to decide representation in respect of regularization of service of petitioner. 8. Though the petitioner was terminated and award of reinstatement was passed in his favour by the Labour Court vide order dated 31.10.2022 with the legal consequence that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the initial date of appointment in the year 1990. 9. If the case of the petitioner is considered treating his initial date of appointment as in the year 1990, he would be entitled to be considered for regularization under circular dated 05/03/2008 issued for consideration of cases of regularization pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) for consideration of cases of those, who have completed 20 years of service. 10. After going through the records and orders passed by the Labour Court, it is quite clear that the effect of the order would be that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break. This would entitle the petitioner for due consideration for regularization under circular dated 05/03/2008. It is ordered accordingly. 9 11. Let the case of the petitioner be considered by a duly constituted Committee as per policy dated 05/03/2008 and a decision be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi