1 2026:CGHC:19271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3608 of 2026 1 - Poshan Kumar Nishad S/o Sadhuram Nishad Aged About 56 Years R/o Parevadih Post Dumardih, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Gopi Yadav S/o Shriram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 41, Near Gaura Chawda, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Bhuneshwar Nishad S/o Jaitram Nishad Aged About 46 Years R/o Popat Medical Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Dataram Sahu S/o Sewaram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Manki Torankatta Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Pramod Sahu S/o Benimadhaw Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 6 - Toleshwar S/o Heeralal Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 47, Balod Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 7 - Yudhisthir Dewangan S/o Bhagirathi Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Shankarpur, Near Santoshi Mandir District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 8 - Ravi Kumar Dewangan S/o Laxmikant Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 9 - Pramod Yadav S/o Mannu Lal Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill. Dumardih Post Dumardih District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 10 - Ramshankar Sahu S/o Durgaram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Pendri District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.05.02 17:13:09 +0530 2 11 - Amit Singh Rajput S/o Luv Kumar Rajpoot Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 27, Raipur Naka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 12 - Satish Kumar S/o Pultan Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 41, Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 13 - Vinod Kumar Gond S/o Khorbehra Gond Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 14 - Ramji Sahu S/o Thakur Ram Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Manki District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 15 - Sunil Dewangan S/o Balram Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 16 - Vishnu Dewangan S/o Mantu Ram Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 17 - Vijay Yadav S/o Kundaram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 01 Dhnaud Anjaura District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 18 - Somlal Yadav S/o Joharik Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Vidyalaypara Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 19 - Baldev Prashad S/o Mangtu Ram Aged About 49 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala , District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 20 - Vijay Yadav S/o Narottam Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 21 - Nihali Ram S/o Thukel Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhathagaon, Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 22 - Gokul Das S/o Lekh Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 23 - Muniram S/o Ramratan Aged About 60 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 24 - Rajesh Dewangan S/o Tahalram Dewangan Aged About 53 Years R/o Mohara District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 25 - Khushiram S/o Patram Aged About 46 Years R/o Mohara District- 3 Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 26 - Kishun Yadav S/o Kalaram Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 27 - Chandra Kumar Sahu S/o Pran Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Domardeeh Khurd District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 28 - Shivdas S/o Thukel Aged About 54 Years R/o Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 29 - Krishna Yadav S/o Kakaram Yadav Aged About 60 Years Bhathagaon Post Bhedikala District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 30 - Pramod Dewangan S/o Bhagirathi Dewangan Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Purana Dhaba District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 31 - Khomlal Gond S/o Guhriram Gond Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Manki, Toran Katta, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, The Department Of Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate , Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation Rajnandgoan, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Diwesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Aniruddh Shrivastava, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 4 Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date they completed ten years of continuous service as daily wage employees, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority, and other service benefits; 10.2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper, in the present circumstances of the case. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that all the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service. They are serving the respondent No.3 as daily wages employee and thereafter they are appointed as contractual employee. He submits that many other similarly situated persons have approached this Court in case of Dhaniram & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS No.6798/2010, Manish Mishra & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS No.6112/2010, Ajeet Verma & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS No.6398/2010 and Ravi Kumar Sen & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others in WPS No.6521/2010 seeking the relief based on the regularization policy formulated by the State Government dated 05.03.2008, therein were 5 allowed and the order of discontinuation of the petitioners there has been set aside. He contended that as petitioner has also worked for more than 10 years, therefore, in view of the recent decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. Counsel for the respective respondents opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not placed on record the documents in support of his contention, therefore, it cant be consider in absence of the same. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioners are working since last more than 10 years with respondent No.3 initially as daily wages employee and thereafter as a contractual employee, however, the service of the petitioner were not regularized. 5. 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 6 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 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 7 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 8 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 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.” 8. Taking into consideration submission of counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service as daily wages employees and thereafter appointed as contractual employees, the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee who are still working as contractual employees and the relief as claimed by petitioner for regularization of his service as also considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is disposed permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 2 and if, such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioner has completed as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily 9 wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of representation. 9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi