1 / 5 2026:CGHC:20630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3716 of 2026 Sitaram Dadsena S/o Gopal Dadsena Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Baya, Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest And Climate Change, Aranya Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Balauda Bazar, District - Balauda Bazar 4 - Forest Range Officer Dhamtari Itwari Bazar, Old Dhamtari Road District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 04.05.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 2 / 5 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ/order directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ/order directing the respondents for considering the representation dated 12.09.2025 of the petitioner for regularization. 10.4 To issue an appropriate writ/order directing the respondents for considering the representation dated 28.10.2025 of the petitioner for regularization. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Truck Cleaner on 31.12.1995 and since then petitioner is continuously working as Daily Wage Employee. He contended that since 1995 petitioner has completed more than 30 years of the services and therefore, petitioner has become eligible for consideration of his candidature for regularization in service. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472, Jaggo Versus Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826. 3. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking permission to submit a representation to be considered by the respondent No. 4, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Claim as raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are continuously working as daily wage employee for more than 20 years. 3 / 5 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Versus Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the 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 but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30th January 2026 has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization and have further directed for regularizing the appellants therein, in service. 8. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures 4 / 5 perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices and observed thus: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long- term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. x x x 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere 5 / 5 negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 9. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is engaged as daily wage employee since 1995, the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee and the relief as claimed by petitioner for regularization of his service as also considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is disposed permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 3 and 4 and if, such a representation is submitted, the concerned authorities shall consider and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the length of service which the petitioners have completed about 30 years , as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law, preferably within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of representation. 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh