1 2026:CGHC:242-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 947 of 2025 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Hasaud, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter, Jail Road, Arenya Bhavan, Medical College Road, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh Forest Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Goverdhan Sahu S/o Late Mahngu Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Post Chhido, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.05 16:57:15 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents / State on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 258 days in filing the instant appeal. Also heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel respondent / writ petitioner. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 4091/2020 (Goverdhan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Though, the present appeal is beyond time by 258 days, but it has also been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 548/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Radhey Lal Gond) vide order dated 31.07.2025, observing as follows : “8. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition that when there is an order of competent Court for reinstating service of respondent, he was reinstated, it will have its effect that respondent continued in service since initial date of his engagement i.e. from the year 1996 unless otherwise specified. Further, State Government has issued Circular dated 05.03.2008 3 for regularization of service of daily wage employee / temporary employee and under Clause B, it is mentioned that regularization of an employee engaged in between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 as daily wage / temporary employee. In the said Circular, under Clause 2 (VII) wherein it is specifically provided that regularization be made against sanctioned and vacant post and it further mentions that wherever in the Department it is required, supernumerary post be created. Clause 2 (VII) is extracted below for ready reference: (viii) नियमिनिकरण स्वीक  एवी रिरक् पद पर ही निकय जाएगा। इस ही जिजा निवीभागा  आवीश्यक ही# वीही सख्यर पद नि቞ኌ& निकय जाय । यदिद पद ही कलेक्टर दर पर स्वीक  ही# # स्वीक  पद ( द*निक वी पर) क# नियमि वी  परिरवीቔኌ& (सजिजा) कर ही#गा।" 9. While rejecting claim of respondent, Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 26.11.2019 erred in rejecting claim of respondent observing that respondent was discontinued from service in the year 2000 and he has not continuously worked for a period of ten years and further that he has not worked against sanctioned and vacant post said observation / reason assigned for rejecting claim for regularization of respondent is contrary to the order passed by Labour Court wherein respondent has been reinstated which is having effect of reinstating in service from initial date of his appointment and further is in contravention of specific Clause under Circular dated 05.03.2008 as extracted above. 10. Further the Division Bench of this Court while considering almost identical issue in case of Tukaram (supra) has observed that the effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of discontinuance never existed. It was also observed that the 4 litigious worker would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigation before the Labour Court. 11. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 548/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 548/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 548/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in WA No. 548/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet