1 2025:CGHC:55945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3445 of 2023 1 - Bhekh Ram Sahu S/o. Shri Chabiram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o. House No. 237, Ward No. 09, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records of this case. 2023 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order directing the respondent authorities toquash the advertisement dated Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 18.05.2023 as the same is against the settled principle of law and rules prescribed in this behalf. The respondent authorities have failed to understand the basic rule of reservation and have released advertisement for single post of DEO in reserved category; and 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order directing the respondent authorities toabsorb/regularize the petitioner as he is working continuously in a sanctioned post from last 11 years and declare the appointment of the petitioner procedurally substantive from the date he has completed three years of his service with the respondent authorities with all the consequential relief; or 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order directing the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner in parity with the Class IV employees who have been regularised by the state Government after completing three years of their service and regularise the petitioner from the date he has completed his three years of service with all the consequential relief on similar grounds on or which Class IV employees have been regularised/absorbed regularise the petitioner in accordance with the circular issued by the labour department; or 10.5 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator (DEO) in the Office of the Collector (Tribal Development), Mahasamund, by an order dated 26.11.2012. The appointment was made on a collector rate basis, with the condition that it would automatically be considered canceled upon completion of the work. The petitioner has been continuously working in the same post for the past 11 years, without any interruption, and has been regularly paid for his services. During this period, the petitioner has not faced any official issues with regard to his employment until recently. The Government of Chhattisgarh's Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development 3 Department had sanctioned the creation of a post of DEO for the district level as part of its departmental setup, with the sanctioned post for DEO listed at serial number 16 in the order dated 25.04.2005. Despite this, on 16.09.2022, the office of the Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Development, sought information regarding the regular appointment to the DEO post in Mahasamund. In response, the Office of the Collector (Tribal Development) informed on 28.09.2022 that the petitioner had been appointed on 26.11.2012 and was being paid Rs. 11,750/- monthly. However, there was no mention in the letter about the discontinuance of the services of petitioner. Further complicating the matter, an advertisement was issued on 18.05.2023 for the recruitment of a DEO in the reserved category, and the last date for submitting applications was 31.05.2023. This advertisement came just a day after three previous advertisements were issued, and the petitioner contends that issuing a single vacancy for a reserved category post was unlawful. The petitioner alleges that the authorities are unaware of the proper procedures for recruitment, given that they issued amended advertisements without sufficient time to process the earlier ones. This situation led to the concerns of petitioner about facing unemployment after 11 years of service. In addition, the petitioner notes that other employees in similar situations, working on a collector rate basis for several years, were regularized in various departments of the state, such as in the case of 158 Class IV employees by the order dated 24.02.2022. These employees were regularized after three years of service, and their notional pay fixation was done accordingly. The petitioner had filed applications for regularization, but these have not been considered. The petitioner also cites a letter from the Labour Department dated 29.03.2023, which provides for the regularization of employees who have completed five years of service, yet his case remains unresolved. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actions and omissions of the respondent authorities in the present case are prejudicial to the principles of service jurisprudence and the fundamental rights of petitioner under the Constitution. The petitioner, who has been working as a Data Entry Operator (DEO) in the Office of the Collector (Tribal Development), Mahasamund, for the past 11 years, faces the imminent threat of unemployment once the post of DEO is filled, as per the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities. The petitioner, having crossed the age limit for appearing in the recruitment process, will not only lose his job but also face significant financial hardship. It is submitted that the sanctioning of the DEO post dates back to 2005, and yet, the respondent department has only now, in 2023, issued an advertisement for the post. This delay of 18 years is both arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly considering the petitioner has been continuously working in the post for over a decade without any formal regularization. Further, the department has adopted a dual approach towards the regularization of employees, wherein Class IV employees with only three years of service have been regularized, while the petitioner, with 11 years of uninterrupted service, has been denied the same benefit. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the principle of legitimate expectation is applicable in this case, as he has been working in the post for over a decade with the reasonable expectation that his services would be regularized, especially in light of the regularization of other employees who have been in service for shorter periods. The fact that the respondent authorities have issued multiple advertisements for the DEO post, including one for a single reserved category post, further highlights the arbitrary nature of the process, especially as it disregards the long-standing service and contribution of petitioner. The learned counsel petitioner further contends that the respondent authorities’ failure to act in accordance with the guidelines issued by the General Administrative Department (GAD) in 5 December 2018, which instructed the regularization of irregular, contractual, and daily wage employees after a specified period of service, constitutes a violation of the said guidelines. The case of petitioner is also supported by a circular issued by the Labour Department in March 2023, which provides for the regularization of contractual employees who have completed five years of continuous service, a policy that has been implemented by various departments. The petitioner, having completed 11 years of service, is entitled to the same benefits and should not be treated differently from employees in similar circumstances. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on a collector rate basis in the Office of the Collector (Tribal Development), Mahasamund, as per the appointment order dated 26.11.2012. It was clearly mentioned in the appointment order that the appointment would automatically be cancelled upon completion of the work, which implies that the position of petitioner was temporary in nature. The petitioner has continued to work on a daily-wager basis and is receiving salary accordingly. The grievance raised by the petitioner regarding non- regularization is misplaced, as his appointment was never intended to be permanent. The petitioner has failed to meet the criteria for regularization as laid down by the State Government's circulars. Specifically, vide the order dated 04.07.2023, Respondent No. 2 directed the cancellation of appointments of temporary employees working under work-charge contingency who had not been recruited in accordance with the rules. Furthermore, the advertisement issued on 18.05.2023 for the position of DEO, including the reserved category, reflects the regular recruitment process and does not support the petitioner’s demand for regularization based on his 11 years of service. In view of these submissions, the learned State Counsel argues that the claims of petitioner lack merit, and the petition 6 should be dismissed as it fails to meet the criteria for regularization and does not warrant judicial intervention at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been regularly paid for his services and has been performing his duties. The primary grievance of petitioner is that, despite his long tenure, he has not been regularized, whereas other similarly situated employees, particularly Class IV employees, have been regularized after a shorter period of service. The claim of petitioner for regularization is based on the principles of legitimate expectation, as he has worked continuously in the post for over a decade. 7. Considering the overall facts of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to file a representation with the respondent authorities in accordance with the law. The authorities are further directed to consider the case of petitioner in light of the advertisement issued on 18.05.2023 and take a pragmatic approach in evaluating the claim of petitioner for regularization, given his long service. The authorities are expected to pass an appropriate order with respect to the regularization of the petitioner, taking into account the principles of fairness, the guidelines issued by the State Government, and the service jurisprudence, as well as the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases. 8. The representation, once filed by the petitioner, should be considered expeditiously, and the authorities should pass a reasoned order within a reasonable time frame, ensuring that the rights of petitioner are protected in accordance with the settled principles of law. 9. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE