{W.P.(S)Nos.5173/2017, 5182 of 2017 & 5188 of 2017} 2025:CGHC:9246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5173 of 2017 Rupram Dewangan, S/o late Bodhi Ram Dewangan, Aged about 48 years, Posted as a Watchman (Chaukidaar) at Rest House, Public Works Department, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 5182 of 2017 Suresh Kumar Adil, S/o Shriram Adil, Aged about 47 years, Posted as a Peon at Division Office, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantrayala, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.02.24 12:32:06 +0530 {W.P.(S)Nos.5173/2017, 5182 of 2017 & 5188 of 2017} 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents AND WPS No. 5188 of 2017 Nanukram, S/o late Shri Lallaram, Aged about 48 years, Posted as a Watchman (Chaukidaar) at Rest House, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal) Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these three writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The two substantial reliefs sought by the petitioners in these writ petitions are, firstly, their post be converted from Labour to {W.P.(S)Nos.5173/2017, 5182 of 2017 & 5188 of 2017} Watchman on which they were posted previously and secondly, they be regularised from 13-1-2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners ought to have regularised from 13-1-2015 with retrospective effect. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners cannot be granted regularization with retrospective effect. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is well settled law that retrospective regularization cannot be directed unless the rules so provide. 7. In this matter of conferment of retrospective seniority, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P.1 may be noticed herein in which their Lordships have held as under: “10.... The latecomers to the regular stream cannot steal a march over the early arrivals in the regular queue. On principle the appellants cannot therefore succeed. What is more in matters of seniority the Court does not exercise jurisdiction akin to appellate jurisdiction against the determination by the competent authority, so long as the competent authority has acted bona fide and acted on principles of fairness and fair play. In a matter where there is no rule or regulation governing the situation or where there is one, but is not violated, the court will not overturn the determination unless it would be unfair not to do so." 1 1986 Supp SCC 185 : 1986 SCC (L & S) 584 {W.P.(S)Nos.5173/2017, 5182 of 2017 & 5188 of 2017} 8. The principles enunciated in Shitla Prasad Shukla (supra) are applicable to the case at hand. The petitioners herein are claiming seniority benefit for around 10 years without working for a single day during that period. In this situation, the seniority balance cannot be tilted against those who entered service much before the petitioners. Seniority benefit can accrue only after a person joins service and to say that benefits can be earned retrospectively would be erroneous. Such view was expressed in many cases and most recently in Ganga Vishan Gujrati v. State of Rajasthan2, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: "45. A consistent line of precedent of this Court follows the principle that retrospective seniority cannot be granted to an employee from a date when the employee was not borne on a cadre. Seniority amongst members of the same grade has to be counted from the date of initial entry into the grade. This principle emerges from the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra3. The principle was reiterated by this Court in State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath4 and State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma5." 9. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the subsequent regularization of the petitioners does not entitle them to the benefit of intervening service and, therefore, they can neither be granted regularization from their initial appointment nor they could be granted retrospective regularisation, as it would affect the others. As far as the conversion of post from Labour to Watchman is 2 (2019) 16 SCC 28 : (2021) 1 SCC (L & S) 403 3 (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L & S) 339 4 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334 :1991 SCC (L & S) 1070 5 (2007) 1 SCC 683 : (2007) 1 SCC (L & S) 594 {W.P.(S)Nos.5173/2017, 5182 of 2017 & 5188 of 2017} concerned, it also cannot be granted, as they have been regularised only on the post of Labour, which they have admittedly accepted and are working on that post. However, the petitioners are at liberty to move representation before the respondent authorities for redressal of their grievances, which shall be considered in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma