1 2025:CGHC:58317-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 838 of 2025 The Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Mithlesh Shrivas S/o Chhedilal Shrivas, Aged About 42 Years R/o 27 Kholi, Pump House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Under Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. For Caveator : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.03 10:39:25 +0530 2 02.12.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed. Delay of 43 days in filling the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The appellant/ respondent has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 9220 of 2019 by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 4. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this Writ Appeal and set aside/quash the impugned Judgment/Order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPS No. 9220 of 2019 and restore the order dated 31.07.2019 and dismiss the original writ petition; &/or Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner has been working as a daily wager under Municipal 3 Corporation, Bilaspur since 1997 and in the light of State Government’s circular dated 05.3.2008, she was entitled for regularization, but the authorities have not regularized her services on the ground that there was break in service for more than one month in the year 2000. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filled writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/ Municipal corporation has been filed challenging the said order. 6. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 11. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, that the petitioner has been engaged with the office of the respondent No.3 since 1997, but till date she has not been regularized and she has been compelled to perform duties on a very low pay scale for 27 years, whereas, it was informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that juniors to petitioner namely Shri Dinesh Lallu, Shri Govind Sahdev, Shri Dashrath and various other persons have already been regularized in their service. 4 12. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, I feel inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, impugned Order dated 31.7.2019 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside/quashed and respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her regularization from the date when her juniors were regularized on their employment. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in setting aside the order dated 31.07.2019 without appreciating that Respondent No. 1’s engagement was vitiated by a clear break in service from 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2000, rendering her ineligible for regularization under Clause 2(iii) of the Circular dated 05.03.2008, which mandates uninterrupted service with no break exceeding one month. It is submitted that the burden of establishing continuous service lay upon Respondent No. 1, and the appellant had produced official records, including note sheets reflecting termination on 15.01.2000 and reinstatement on 01.07.2000. The learned Single Judge, however, erroneously shifted the burden to the appellant to produce additional muster rolls or attendance registers. Counsel argues that the exception carved out in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and clarified in State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. ML Kesari and Ors. 5 Reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 is inapplicable in the present case, as continuous service is an essential precondition, which is admittedly absent. He further submits that the reliance placed on Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. , 2024 SCC Online 3826 and Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad, 2025 SCC Online 221 is stated to be misconceived, as those decisions do not permit overlooking admitted service breaks for purposes of regularization. It is further urged that the certificate dated 08.05.2025, filed belatedly by Respondent No. 1 to explain the break, is not contemporaneous, lacks evidentiary value, and cannot override official records. Learned counsel submits that adopting a liberal approach towards regularization would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by permitting backdoor entries and burdening the public exchequer, contrary to the mandates of Uma Devi and subsequent decisions including Dharam Singh (2025). It is emphasized that the scrutiny committee had rightly found the respondent ineligible due to the service break, as recorded even in para 4 of the impugned order. The order of the learned Single Judge is therefore stated to be arbitrary, perverse, contrary to settled law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the respondent has been working as a daily wager employee with the Office of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, but till date, her 6 employment has not been regularized only on the ground that there was break in her service from 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2000. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent is a daily wager and she was directed to perform her duty through oral instructions and in the month of January 2000, she was working at Sanjay Taran Pushkar on the basis of oral direction of the respondent authorities and thereafter, she was directed to perform her duty at Devkinandan School. In this regard, learned counsel referred Certificate issued on 08.5.2025 by Principal of the said school, in which endorsement has also been made by former Principal of that school. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of Order dated 05.3.2008 passed by Government of Chhattisgarh, the respondent No. 1 was eligible for her regularization, but the same has not been given by the authorities, thereby she has been deprived. He would next submit that in pursuant to the Order dated 05.3.2008, other daily wages employees were regularized by respondent No.3, therefore, employment of the respondent No. 1 may also be regularized from 2008. In this regard, he placed reliance on the cases of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. , 2024 SCC Online 3826 and Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad, 2025 SCC Online 221. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the 7 material available on record, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present appeal. The respondent No. 1 has been continuously engaged as a daily wage employee since 1997 and has been serving for more than two decades without regularization, whereas several similarly-situated employees junior to her have already been regularized. The alleged break in service from 01.01.2000 to 30.06.2000, which forms the sole basis of denial of regularization, has been sufficiently explained by the respondent through the certificate issued by Devkinandan School and supported by the endorsement of its former Principal. The appellant, despite relying on internal note sheets, failed to produce any contemporaneous documentary evidence such as muster rolls or attendance registers to conclusively establish disengagement, whereas the respondent’s explanation remains unrebutted. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the break in service was not established in the manner required under law. Further, the direction issued to consider the respondent’s case for regularization from the date her juniors were regularized is in consonance with the principles of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is supported by judicial precedents relied upon by the respondent. 8 11. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti