1 2025:CGHC:20879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1710 of 2018 1 - Santosh Kumar Pandey S/o Late Ganga Prasad Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Near S. R. Gupta Provision Shop, Indira Nagar Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajdeep Vaishnav S/o Shri Balkishan Vaishnav, Aged About 35 Years R/o Shriyansh Subhash Nagar, Nandani Road Power House, Bhilai, District, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - D. Mahalaxmi W/o Late D. Venkateshwarlu Aged About 41 Years R/o Block No. 85/ A, Pragati Nagar Camp 1, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Rekha Bai W/o Late Sadhelal Aged About 44 Years R/o Mother Teresa Nagar, Zone 3, Camp 1, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sunabai W/o Late Alakhram Aged About 45 Years Dhol Chowk, Risali Basti, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, Through Its Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the -2- brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. It is informed by Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate that respondent No.2 has withdrawn the file from their office. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent to consider the case of petitioners for regularization in accordance with law. 10.2 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 3. Ms. Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father and husband of the petitioners were working with the Special Area Development Authority (SADA), Bhilai and thereafter it was upgraded to Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. She would further submit that the father and husband of the petitioners were employees of the Municipal Corporation and they died during their services. She would contend that the petitioners approached respondent No.2 for the grant of compassionate appointment and were appointed to the post of 3 Labour, Pump Attendant and Sweeper, respectively. She would further contend that the petitioners are working with respondent No.1 since 2001 but till date, their services have not been regularized. She would also contend that as the petitioners were appointed on a compassionate basis, they are entitled to regularization from the date of their initial appointment and they were entitled to regular employment from inception. She would pray that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioners. In support of her contentions, she placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. the State of Jharkhand and others, 2018 (8) SCC 238. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kaur. 5. Heard Ms. Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.1/State at length. 6. The order Annexure P/1 would show that the petitioners were appointed on a compassionate ground vide orders dated 14.08.2001, 17.08.2001,14.08.2001, 28.10.2001 and 14.08.2001 respectively. 7. As the petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds and there is no provision to provide compassionate appointments -4- as daily rated employees, the petitioners are entitled to regularization. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) in para 11 held as under:- “11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct, etc.” 9. It appears that respondent No.2 has not taken any decision till date despite various representations. 10.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps/pass orders with regard to the regularization of services of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha