1 2025:CGHC:10197-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 143 of 2025 1 - Panchram Rathore S/o Jhabbu Rathore Aged About 54 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Peon, In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Marwahi, District - Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Development Commissioner Chhattisgarh Raipur Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Division Marwahi, Head Quarter Pendra, District - Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03. 03.2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 2055/2017 with the following prayer:- “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal, set aside the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in WPS No. 2055/2017 between Panchram Rathore Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors and consequent grant the reliefs as prayed in WPS No. 2055/2017 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts, as mentioned in the writ appeal as well as the writ petition are that the writ appellant/ petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis on the post of Peon on 01.08.1991 by Block Development Officer, Gourela and, thereafter, in the year 1993, his service was transferred in the office of Rural Engineering Services and he is continuously performing his duty as such without any break. It is alleged further that in pursuance to the Circular, bearing No. F12-1/2007/1-3, dated 05.03.2008, the Respondent No.5- Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division, Marwahi, vide its letter dated 01.07.2008 has recommended his name for regularization, however, no decision was taken, therefore, he was constrained to approach this court for the redressal of his grievance, while filing the petition, being WP(S) No.715 of 2017. In the said writ petition, this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 10.02.2017 directed the concerned respondent authorities to consider his case for regularization, in accordance with the Circular, issued on 05.03.2008. In pursuance to the said direction, the petitioner has submitted his representation before the concerned authorities, however, vide order impugned dated 28.03.2017, his claim has been refused while referring to 3 clause B(2)(iii) of the said Circular. In support, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the matter of Jaggo versus Union of India and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826. But after hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the documents annexed with the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ appellant/ petitioner herein vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the writ appellant with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that petitioner is discharging its duties against the 2 vacant sanctioned post of peon available in the department and non issuance of any any appointment order is utmost makes the appointment of the petitioner irregular but the petitioner has worked against the duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than 33 years, therefore, the petitioner should be considered for regularization. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Circular dated 05.03.2008 was applicable to only those daily wages/ad-hoc appointees, who were appointed not in an illegal manner on or before 31.12.1997 and have performed their duties continuously without any interruption till the date of consideration for the regularization. It is contested further on the ground that since the petitioner, as per the official record, was not in continuous in his service every year as there is break in service for more than a month, therefore, he is not entitled to be regularized by virtue of the said Circular, issued on 05.03.2008. As such, his claim has rightly been rejected. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:- 4 4. What is, therefore, reflected from the averments made in the petition, vis-a-vis, the documents annexed, that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon, vide order dated 01.10.1991 for the period of 89 days and no appointment order was, thereafter, issued in his favour, nor even the plea has been taken to this effect. He. therefore, appears to work as such in clandestine manner even without any appointment order. 5. Insofar as, the principles laid down in the matter of Jaggo versus Union of India and Others (supra), is concerned, the same is, however, distinguishable from the facts involved herein. As in the said matter, the appellants were appointed either on part-time or ad-hoc basis and worked for the requisite period, as required, and therefore, they have been held to be regularized. However, in the instant matter, no appointment order was issued after 01.10.1991 and the petitioner was, thus, found to be performed his duties continuous in a surreptitious and/ or in clandestine manner. 6. In view of the aforesaid background, the petitioner would not be entitled to be regularized on the basis of the said Circular, dated 05.03.2008, so as to call for any interference in the order impugned refusing his claim for regularization. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost (S) Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.04 17:00:02 +0530