1 2026:CGHC:7404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1494 of 2023 Purushottam Panda S/o Late Durga Charan Panda, Aged About 49 Years R/o House No. 208, Vinoba Nagar Raigarh, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 3, Fourth Floor, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Principal, Govt. Kirodimal Institute of Technology, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent authorities and further prays for issuance of YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.12 10:59:49 +0530 2 appropriate directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with all consequential benefits, including back wages, with the following relief(s):– “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30/6/2021 (annexure p-1) passed by the respondent authorities. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and the petitioner must also be entitled for back wages and other consequential benefits from his regularization. 10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in Government Kirodimal Institute of Technology, Raigarh, District Raigarh, pursuant to an appointment order dated 21.07.2009, and since then he has been continuously discharging his duties as a daily wager. The petitioner has rendered more than ten years of uninterrupted service with utmost sincerity and to the complete satisfaction of the superior 3 authorities; however, despite long and blemish-free service and being at the fag end of his career, his case for regularization has not been considered till date. It is further submitted that the District Employment Officer, on due consideration, recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization and addressed communications dated 18.03.2016 and 04.04.2016 to the Principal of the Institute as well as to the State Government. Subsequently, the State Government itself sought a report from the Director/Principal of the Institute regarding the action taken for regularization of the petitioner. Despite repeated oral and written representations made by the petitioner from time to time, no effective steps were taken by the respondent authorities. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the plea taken by the respondents that the Institute is a self-financing institution is misconceived, as the Institute is promoted by the State Government and the Directorate of Technical Education, Chhattisgarh, has also issued directions to comply with the orders of this Court. The petitioner was appointed after following due process of selection pursuant to statutory prescription and his appointment is neither a back-door entry nor irregular, but against a vacant post. It is also submitted that the petitioner has continued in service since 2009 and has not been removed till date, and having now crossed the upper age limit for direct recruitment, he would be rendered remediless if his services are not regularized. Reliance is placed upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that employees who have worked for more than ten years in duly sanctioned posts should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. The continued inaction of the respondents has caused serious financial and mental hardship to the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the entire writ petition it would be evident that the petitioner was working as a Driver in Government Kirodimal Institute of Technology, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) i.e. respondent No. 3, where he worked for about ten years. It is submitted that the said Institute is a self-financed institution and, therefore, the answering respondents have no role to play in the engagement or discontinuation of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains exclusively to respondent No. 3, who is alleged to have discontinued the petitioner from service and the State has been arrayed as parties only in a formal capacity and no cause of action is made out against them. Consequently, the burden to answer the allegations and factual assertions of the petitioner lies squarely upon respondent No. 3 alone. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Driver in Government Kirodimal Institute of Technology, Raigarh on daily wage basis pursuant to the 5 requirements of the Institute and purely on temporary terms. It is submitted that the Institute is a self-financing institution and no sanctioned post of Driver is available for regular appointment against which the petitioner could be regularized. It is further submitted that the petitioner was never appointed against any duly sanctioned or permanent post, nor was his engagement made in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules governing regular appointments. The petitioner’s engagement was purely need- based, contractual in nature, and liable to be discontinued at any time without conferring any right of continuation or regularization. 6. Learned counsel further submits that mere continuance of the petitioner for a long duration does not create any vested or legal right in his favour for claiming regularization or back wages. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra), clearly holds that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of sanctioned posts and compliance with the recruitment rules. It is also submitted that the discontinuation of the petitioner was neither arbitrary nor illegal but was necessitated due to administrative and financial constraints of the Institute. The petitioner was duly disengaged in accordance with the terms of engagement applicable to daily wage employees. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a Driver by respondent No. 3 on daily wage/contractual basis in Government Kirodimal Institute of Technology, Raigarh, which is a self-financed institution. The petitioner’s engagement was never against a duly sanctioned and vacant post, nor was it made by following the regular recruitment process as prescribed under the applicable statutory rules. 9. The law with regard to regularization of services is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra), has unequivocally held that continuation of a temporary, contractual or daily wage employee for a long period does not, by itself, create any indefeasible right to claim regularization, continuation or absorption in service, particularly in the absence of sanctioned posts and compliance with the recruitment rules. Judicial sympathy cannot override constitutional and statutory mandates governing public employment. 10. In the present case, this Court finds that no material has been brought on record to demonstrate the existence of a sanctioned post of Driver or any statutory provision mandating regularization of the petitioner. The action of respondent No. 3 in discontinuing the petitioner cannot, therefore, be said to be arbitrary, illegal or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India so as to warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7 11. That being so, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. However, it is clarified that if respondent No. 3, in future, proceeds to engage or appoint any other person similarly situated for the post of Driver, whether on contractual, daily wage or any other temporary basis, in substitution of the present petitioner, such action shall not deprive the petitioner of his accrued rights. In such a contingency, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law, including approaching this Court by filing a fresh petition, as it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that one contractual or temporary employee cannot be replaced by another contractual or temporary employee. 13. With the aforesaid observations and liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh