1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2402 of 2023 1 - Durga Prasad Chandra S/o Late Ghanshyam Chandra Aged About 55 Years R/o Khajanchitoli, Jashpurnagar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Forest Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Forest Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure P/ 17. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 authorities to regularize the services of petitioner, with all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee on 01.06.1988 and has since been continuously discharging his duties with sincerity, diligence, and honesty. Over the span of more than three decades, no complaint, stigma, or adverse remark has ever been recorded against him. The petitioner submits that his long and uninterrupted service places him squarely within the category of workers who were intended to be benefitted by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Court held that daily wagers engaged prior to a specified date should be considered for regularization, subject to the conditions prescribed by the State. Acting upon this judgment, the State Government issued a circular dated 05.03.2008 providing for the regularization of daily wage employees who had been working prior to 31.12.1988. This circular Annexure P/1, formed the basis on which numerous similarly situated daily wage employees under the Forest Department were regularized. However, despite being fully eligible and despite numerous representations, the case of petitioner for regularization was not considered by the authorities. To demonstrate the continued nature of his employment, the petitioner points to the official list prepared by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Surguja Forest 3 Circle, Ambikapur, wherein his name appears at serial No. 3. Annexure P/2, clearly records that the petitioner had been serving as a daily wager since 01.06.1988. The petitioner emphasizes that as early as 23.12.1996, the Managing Director of the Minor Forest Produce Federation Limited, Jashpurnagar issued a recommendation stating that the petitioner had been regularly working as a daily wage employee and was therefore eligible for regularization. Thereafter, on 11.08.2004, the Managing Director of the District Union, Jashpurnagar recommended that the name of petitioner be included in the seniority list of eligible employees (Annexure P/4). Around the same period, a committee constituted by the department issued a certificate affirming that, as per official records of the Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Union Limited, Jashpurnagar, the petitioner had indeed been functioning as a daily wager prior to 1988. In addition to the above, on 12.08.2004, yet another recommendation was issued by the Managing Director of the District Minor Forest Produce Cooperative Union Limited, Jashpurnagar, formally recommending that the petitioner’s services be regularized (Annexure P/6). Soon thereafter, on 29.09.2004, the Conservator of Forest-cum-General Manager, Forest Circle, Surguja also recommended the petitioner, along with another employee, for regularization of service (Annexure P/7). Despite these repeated recommendations issued by competent officers of the department, no decision was taken by the authorities for almost fifteen more years. The petitioner continued to serve, and on 31.01.2019, the Kashtagar Officer, Gamharia once again issued a recommendation favoring regularization of the petitioner’s services (Annexure P/8). The 4 persistent non-consideration of his case led to a chain of further departmental communications. On 23.02.2019, the Divisional Forest Officer, Jashpur called for a committee-level report concerning the petitioner’s eligibility for regularization (Annexure P/9). Subsequently, on 09.07.2019, the Divisional Forest Officer issued instructions to the Joint Divisional Forest Officer to submit detailed information and records pertaining to the petitioner’s service for the purpose of evaluating his claim (Annexure P/10). After a detailed scrutiny of all available records, the committee on 03.09.2019 again recommended the petitioner’s case for regularization on the post of Lower Division Clerk (Annexure P/11). Following this, on 07.10.2019, the committee once more recommended the names of the petitioner and other daily wagers for regularization, placing the petitioner’s name at serial No. 1 (Annexure P/12). These repeated departmental recommendations clearly reflected that the petitioner had served for decades and fulfilled all criteria for regularization under the 05.03.2008 circular. Left with no option due to administrative inaction despite numerous recommendations, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 3738 of 2022. The Court, vide order dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P/13), directed respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation and take a reasoned decision. Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 04.07.2022 (Annexure P/14). In compliance, respondent No. 4 constituted a committee on the same day to examine the petitioner’s claim for regularization (Annexure P/15). Thereafter, on 10.08.2022 and 18.08.2022, the Divisional Forest Officer, Jashpur 5 submitted all relevant service records and information to the committee for evaluation (Annexure P/16). However, despite the overwhelming documentary evidence, long years of unblemished service, and multiple recommendations spanning over two decades, the petitioner’s claim was ultimately rejected. Respondent No. 4, vide impugned order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure P/17), dismissed the petitioner’s request for regularization on the ground that the petitioner had not completed ten years of continuous service, and was therefore allegedly ineligible for consideration under departmental policy. The petitioner contends that this finding is wholly incorrect, arbitrary, and contrary to the record, particularly in light of the numerous certifications affirming his service from 1988 onwards. The impugned order, according to the petitioner, ignores material documents and defeats the purpose of the 2008 State circular issued in compliance with the Uma Devi (supra) judgment. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Jitendra Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad in law, and therefore deserves to be quashed. It is urged that the petitioner has been continuously working as a daily wage employee since 01.06.1988, and ever since the year 1996, the respondent authorities themselves have repeatedly recommended his case for regularization, acknowledging his long, uninterrupted, and blemish-free service. Despite this, several similarly situated employees engaged alongside the petitioner have already been regularized, while the petitioner alone has been singled out and denied the same benefit. By the impugned order, respondent No. 4 has rejected the petitioner’s 6 claim solely on the ground that he has not completed ten years of continuous service, a finding that is per se illegal, factually incorrect, and contrary to the very records of the department which consistently show the petitioner’s service since 1988. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and without any stigma or complaint throughout these decades, and therefore squarely falls within the category of employees intended to be benefitted by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), pursuant to which the State Government issued the circular dated 05.03.2008 providing regularization for daily wagers appointed before 31.12.1988. It is contended that the denial of regularization merely on the pretext of non-availability of certain records is arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory, especially when several official committees and competent authorities have repeatedly verified and certified the petitioner’s long-standing service. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Conversely, Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is argued that the petitioner seeks regularization under the State Government’s one-time policy dated 05.03.2008, framed pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), which permits consideration of regularization only for those daily wage employees who were appointed prior to 31.12.1997 and who have continuously worked for ten years, with the stipulation under Clause B(2)(iii) that a break in service in any year must not exceed one month. Learned 7 counsel submits that although the petitioner was initially engaged on 01.06.1988, his claim was examined by a duly constituted five-member scrutiny committee pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.06.2022, and all relevant records were requisitioned from the concerned authorities. Upon thorough scrutiny, the committee found that the petitioner had not discharged continuous service for ten years prior to 31.12.1997, nor had he worked for at least eleven months in each calendar year, as mandated by the circular; rather, the official records revealed repeated breaks in service exceeding one month. Since the petitioner failed to produce any documentary proof of uninterrupted service for the required period, the committee rightly declared him ineligible for regularization and accordingly did not recommend his name, as reflected in its report (Annexure R/1). It is thus contended that the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure P/17), rejecting the petitioner’s claim, is fully justified, legal, and in consonance with the policy, as regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the petitioner’s grievance stands fully answered by due consideration of his case. Hence, the petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record, including the impugned order dated 13.01.2023, the numerous departmental recommendations placed on record, and the documentary evidence demonstrating the petitioner’s long tenure in service. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily wage employee on 01.06.1988 and that several competent authorities, 8 ranging from the Managing Director, Minor Forest Produce Federation, to the Conservator of Forest and various Divisional-level officers, have, on multiple occasions since 1996, continuously recommended the petitioner’s case for regularization. The record further reveals that the petitioner has been rendering services for more than three decades without any interruption attributable to him and without any blemish or adverse entry in his service tenure. In contrast, the only ground on which the respondents have denied regularization is the alleged absence of continuous service for ten years prior to 31.12.1997, as noted by the scrutiny committee. This Court finds that such reasoning is unsustainable in view of the overwhelming evidence on record demonstrating the petitioner’s long-standing service, certified by the department itself on numerous occasions. 7. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in a catena of judgments that where an employee has been allowed to serve for an extended period, continuously and without interruption, and where the employer has extracted work for decades without regularizing the employee, the authorities cannot deny regularization on hyper- technical grounds or by taking advantage of their own lapses in maintaining service records. When the department itself has consistently acknowledged the petitioner’s employment since 1988 and has repeatedly recommended his case for regularization, the respondents cannot now deny the benefit merely on account of technicalities relating to breaks in service, especially when such breaks are not attributable to the petitioner. 9 8. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. 9. In the matter of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. 22 Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional 10 scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those 11 vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date...." 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 12 9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 10. Further, in the matter of Vinod Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary", but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme- specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion 13 process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period 27 through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Umadevi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. 14 Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507: 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. (emphasis in original)" 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular 15 status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 11. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others passed in SLP(C) No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “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 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 labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of 30 the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are 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 16 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 31 decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their 17 appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the Country.” 12. Further, in the matter of State of Odisha and Others vs. Manoj Kumar Pradhan passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5184/2022 decided on 28.03.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- “The High Court has allowed the petition relying judgments in State of 18 Karnataka vs. Uma Devi on the (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others vs. M.L. Keshari and others 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982, wherein this Court has held that if a person continues to work for 10 years or more on a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of any interim order of the Court or Tribunal, the said employee would be entitled to regularization. In the facts of the present case it is admitted that the respondent has continued to work on contract for over 11 years without any protection of any interim order of a Court or Tribunal. As such, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent is claiming regularization on a post other than the one on which he has been working, which is Pharmacist-cum- Logistic Assistant. We may clarify that the respondent would be entitled to regularization only on the post on which he was appointed and is working at present. The regularization be done within two month from today.” 13. In the matter of Shripal and another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of regularization, has held as follows:- “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 19 recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.” 14. In view of the above and the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the spirit of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P/17) is hereby quashed. 15. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case for regularization afresh, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the unbroken long-term service rendered by the petitioner. The respondents shall pass a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20 16. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE