1 2026:CGHC:6671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2433 of 2023 • Harishchandra Sinha S/o Late Kheduram Sinha Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Ramjanki Ward, Abhanpur Basti, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipran Board, Beej Bhawan (Basement) Ravigram, Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the authorities to regularized the petitioner from the order dated 28.08.2009, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner as per law, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Abhanpur, District Raipur on 01.12.1997. On 04.12.1997, while discharging his official duties, he met with an accident and remained on medical leave from 04.12.1997 to 25.03.2000. Thereafter, on 3 26.03.2000, he rejoined the office of respondent No. 3 as a daily wage employee and has been continuously working there till date. The petitioner has completed more than 22 years of service as a daily wage employee but has not been regularized, whereas other employees who joined on 01.12.1997 were regularized on 28.08.2009. That, despite submitting several representations before the competent authority, the same have not been considered. That, the inaction of the authority is contrary to law and arbitrary in nature. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage employee in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Abhanpur, District Raipur on 01.12.1997 and, while discharging his official duties, met with an accident on 04.12.1997, due to which he remained on medical leave from 04.12.1997 to 25.03.2000. Thereafter, he rejoined service on 26.03.2000 and has been continuously working as a daily wage employee till date. He further submits that despite having rendered more than 22 years of continuous service, the petitioner has not been regularized, whereas other similarly situated employees who were appointed on 01.12.1997 were regularized vide order dated 28.08.2009, thereby entitling the petitioner to similar benefits from the same date. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has submitted several 4 representations before the competent authorities, but the same have been arbitrarily ignored, causing grave injustice to him. It is submitted that such inaction on the part of the respondents is contrary to law, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of fairness and equality. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, having served the respondents diligently for more than two decades on meagre daily wages, is facing severe financial hardship and mental harassment due to non-regularization, and the continued neglect by the authorities has adversely affected his livelihood and dignity. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to grant appropriate relief in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondents to regularize his services with effect from 28.08.2009 and to extend all consequential benefits. Learned counsel has also relied upon various decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others in WPS No. 1703/2015, Sanjeeb Kumar Rathore vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, as well as Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others (SLP ( C) No. 5580/2024) where regularisation was granted in similar circumstances. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 1735. 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 3 jointly submit that the petitioner is seeking regularization from 28.08.2009 on the ground that similarly situated persons have been regularized by the Mandi Board; however, it is respectfully submitted that vide order dated 28.08.2009, the employees were regularized strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of General Administration, dated 05.03.2008. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under the said Circular, as he was not in continuous service from 04.12.1997 to 25.03.2000, and there is no provision for grant of medical leave to a daily wager. Since there was a clear break in the petitioner’s service, he cannot be considered for regularization under the Circular dated 05.03.2008. They further submit that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization under the applicable provisions and, therefore, the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in [2006] 3 S.C.R. 953 has held in para 46 as under:- 6 “46. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should 7 have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would 8 stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” 7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) INSC 1034 has held in paras 22, 26 and 27 as under:- “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment 9 arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (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 10 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 appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (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 11 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.” 8. Furthermore, in the matter of Vinod Kumar and others v. 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 12 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 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 13 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 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: 14 "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: 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 15 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 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 16 employment regulations.” 9. Further, in the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. 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 scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic 17 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. 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 18 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 vacant 19 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. " 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: 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. 20 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. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees 21 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). 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 22 posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 10.Furthermore, in the matter of Tukaram (Supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “22. Now if we look into the facts of the present case, undisputedly, by now it has to be accepted that these workmen were initially appointed on different dates as mentioned in the aforementioned chart. Perusal of the said chart would reveal that all the workmen have put in a considerable period of time from the date of their appointment before they were discontinued in service and after the order of the Labour Court which in due course of time has attained finality they have also been reinstated. From the date of reinstatement also till date all the workmen are still working with the Respondents and from the date of reinstatement also they have put in a considerable period of time. All these workers have been slogging with the Respondents with a hope and legitimate expectation of being regularized one day. Based 23 upon the judgment of Umadevi (supra), the State of Chhattisgarh also has issued a circular on 5.3.2008. The obiect of the said circular also was for considering the persons who had completed more than 10 years of service they should be regularized. The alleged order of termination of service of the daily wage workers was held to be illegal by the Labour Court. The effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of ance never existed. All these workmen as on date are all middle aged persons and would not be now in a position for getting a regular employment elsewhere. 23. Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008 also being the circular of the State Government issued keeping in mind the welfare of the poor workers and has been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed on daily wage basis and the 24 post against which these persons are discharging so as to subserve the common good that can occur to the workers for the long service rendered by the respective workmen. 24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008. 25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just, proper and legal. 25 26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these petitions is answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioners- workers holding that they would Dot-fall-in the category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigating before the Labour Court. As a consequence, the workers in those cases where the claim has been rejected by the respective Respondents on the ground of there being break in service or the claim of the workers being rejected on the ground of their not serving the Respondents prior to 31.12.1997 are all set aside/quashed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of these petitioners-workers for regularization in accordance with the circular granting them the advantage of continuity of service from the date of their initial engagement till date.” 11. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P., (2025) SCC Online SC 1735, the 26 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 27 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003. rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot 28 be sustained. 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. 16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which 29 the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from 30 the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.” 12. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the laws laid down by the Hon’ble 31 Supreme Court in the matters of Uma Devi (Supra) and Jaggo (Supra) as also in the matter of Vinod Kumar (Supra), it is apparent that temporary employees cannot be made victim of their temporary service and they are required to be considered for regularization. It is their legitimate expectation to be regularized and they cannot suffer from misuse of "Temporary" labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits as they are serving with the respondent authorities. 13. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dharam Singh vs. State of U.P., (2025) SCC Online SC 1735, has reaffirmed that continuing an employee for a long period on a daily wage basis is in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, the Court further held that even retired employees were entitled to regularisation with effect from 24.04.2002 and were also granted the benefits of pay fixation, revised pension, and terminal dues, thereby ensuring protection of their legal and constitutional rights. 14. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position as laid down in Sanjeeb Kumar Rathore (Supra), Tukaram (Supra), Uma Devi (Supra), Jaggo (Supra) and Dharam Singh (Supra) cases regarding regularisation, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has 32 made out a good case for regularisation. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to duly consider and examine the petitioner’s case for regularisation with effect from 28.08.2009, in accordance with the applicable rules, policies, and legal provisions, and to pass a reasoned, just and appropriate order thereon within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat