1 2025:CGHC:53157-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 696 of 2025 Ghurau Chouhan S/o Shri Satyanand Chouhan Aged About 63 Years Now Retired As Peon, Government High School Bonda Block - Baramkela District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh Now District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Now District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District Raigarh Now District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Block Education Officer Baramkela, District Raigarh Now District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.31 18:34:04 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents on I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. an application for condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4510 of 2021 (Ghurau Chouhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein holding that, regularization should be prospective and not retrospective. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as a contingency employee/peon on 02.12.1995 on ad-hoc basis against a vacant post under the respondent-authorities and continuously discharged his duties diligently without any complaint or adverse remark. His services were extended from time to time 3 for periods of 89 days and thereafter, vide order dated 16.02.2009, he was regularized (name appearing at Sr. No. 242). The writ petitioner claimed regular pay scale and seniority from the initial date of appointment, relying upon orders passed by the State Administrative Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court in similar matters. Upon refusal by the respondents, he filed W.P.(S) No. 8012/2018, which was disposed directing him to submit a fresh representation. The writ petitioner accordingly submitted representation along with relevant documents, however the same was rejected on the ground that he was appointed after 1988 and, therefore, not entitled to the benefits under the circular dated 15.12.1992. The writ petitioner contends that the impugned rejection order is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to judicial precedents, including the orders passed in the case of similarly situated employees who were appointed after 1988 and were granted regular pay scale from their initial date of appointment. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been held that Grade-IV employees are entitled to regular pay on completion of three years of regular service. It is the petitioner’s case that after the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, all orders and circulars of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, including those dated 10.05.1984 and 15.12.1992, continue to apply, and hence he is entitled to regular pay scale and seniority from his initial appointment date. 4 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts and law, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that similarly situated employees appointed after 1988 have been granted the benefit of regular pay on completion of three years’ regular service vide orders dated 16.03.2015, 03.02.2018, 23.01.2019 and 02.03.2019 (Annexure P- 9). It is submitted that the controversy pertains to grant of regular pay scale on completion of three years’ service in terms of the State Government circular dated 15.12.1992, which continues to apply in the State of Chhattisgarh after bifurcation along with earlier orders dated 10.05.1984 and other instructions of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed in 1995 and even employees appointed in 1996 onwards under the same department have been extended the said benefit, but the same has been denied to the petitioner in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP(C) Nos. 8613-8614 of 2022, decided on 31.01.2025, wherein it has been held that Grade-IV employees are entitled to regular salary on completion of three years of service, as well as the judgment in Satish Kumar Mandloi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided by the SAT, to contend that the writ petitioner / appellant herein is entitled to 5 regular pay scale and seniority from the date of initial appointment, and the rejection of his claim without considering the documents and binding precedents is unsustainable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikau K. Dhand and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others (2004) 13 SCC 707, Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Swaran Singh (2005) 13 SCC 246 and in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230 and held that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as chances of their upsetting the seniority of regular appointees cannot be overlooked. In the case before the Supreme Court, the concerned employee was engaged as casual worker on 17/11/1982 and was regularized w.e.f. 26/09/2001 and her claim 6 for regularization from the date of initial appointment was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Regularization from a particular date has several aspects on which the order is passed since it depends on availability of post in a particular office, inter se seniority of persons working on casual basis/daily wagers and seniority of regular appointees. In the light of the above judgments of Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge opined that to pass an order of regularization from a particular date is basically a policy decision and this court need not interfere in such matters unless a right has accrued in favour of the employees to be regularized from a particular date which is taken to be cut-off date by the government. 9. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous examination of the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken therein. The learned Single Judge has duly appreciated the material placed on record and has neither committed any perversity nor any illegality or jurisdictional error which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. In absence of any manifest error apparent on the face of the record or any substantial grounds being made out warranting reconsideration of the impugned order, no case for interference is made out. 7 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet