1 / 4 2026:CGHC:5954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1276 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Soni S/o Late Girdhari Lal Soni Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Ashirwad Lodge Ganjpara Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For State : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 03/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.07 11:10:02 +0530 2 / 4 “i. To kindly direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service as Data Entry Operator against a regular sanctioned post, which he has been discharging continuously and without any break since her approval for appointment. ii. To kindly permit the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent authority for regularization and the same may be considered under the light of judgment passed in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Civil Appeal no. 8558/2018. iii. Any other relief/s may be granted to the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the present fact and circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator against sanctioned post in the year 2011 on contractual basis. Prior to this, petitioner had earlier worked as Data Entry Operator from May 2005 till 18.02.2010 continuously and as of now petitioner has completed about 20 years of his service as Data Entry Operator in the same institution. Petitioner has also submitted representation for his regularization, however, it was not considered. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is an employee of Jila Panchayat and therefore appropriate authority to consider the grievance of petitioner would be respondent No.4. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 / 4 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (2018) 8 SCC 238 held as under: "10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularization 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 Regularization 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." 6. In case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India, SLP(c) No. 5580 of 2024 : AIR 2025 SC 296 Hon’ble Supreme High Court has held as under:- “19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and considering the existing factual position of the case in hand, which is not disputed by the respondents in their return, I am also of the considered view that the action of the respondents is a glaring example of arbitrary attitude harassing and exploiting an employee for years together taking his services since long and not extending him benefit of regularization. This attitude of the respondents is purely illegal and not appreciable especially for the reason when the petitioner has very specifically taken a stand that while scrutinizing the cases of daily wagers by the Screening Committee, the cases of daily wagers working in Sidhi Division, where the petitioner was working, were not considered. The return is silent to that extent and there is no denial of the said fact therefore, this Court has no hesitation to accept that the said fact is correct and the respondents have illegally denied the claim of the petitioner for regularization making unjustified excuses. The petitioner 4 / 4 was not illegally appointed that too when there was a vacant post available, therefore, he cannot be deprived from regularization of his services.” 7. On due consideration of submission of learned counsel for respective parties, considering the nature of grievance raised seeking relief of regularization in service as Data Entry Operator and as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner was appointed on contractual basis against sanctioned vacant post and further taking into consideration the long period of service of petitioner as contractual employee and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) Jaggo (supra), I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of permitting petitioner to submit comprehensive representation to respondent No. 1 & 4 and if such representation is submitted, concerned authority shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of representation. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen