1 2026:CGHC:14785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6987 of 2021  Rama Yadav S/o Shri Savant Ram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Taregaon (Camp) Post Bijalpur, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur , Atal Nagar , Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Divisional Manager Kawardha Division, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 Call for entire records of the case. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.01 11:02:00 +0530 2 10.2 Issue writ of certiorari and quash the impugned Advertisement Annexure P-1. 10.3 Issue writ of mandamus and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner or to consider his case for regularisation, from the date he is entitled for with all consequential benefits OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation prior to the completion of the recruitment process as per impugned advertisement Annexure P-1. 10.4 Issue appropriate writ(s)/ direction(s)/ order(s) respondents to compensate the petitioner for the mental agony and harassment and the cost of this litigation may also be awarded. 10.5 Such other ordersas this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.” 2. Mr. Tamboli would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee under the respondent No. 5 in the year 1990, but till date no decision has been taken with regard to regularization of service. He would submit that there are internal communications between the respondent No. 5 and 6 and this fact is evident from Annexure P/9 & P/11. He would submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of circular dated 05.03.2008. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration limited prayer made by Mr. Tamboli, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 5, and in turn, said authority is directed to decide it in objective manner, strictly in accordance with the law, 3 preferably within a period of 120 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant