1 / 5 2026:CGHC:1564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 158 of 2026 Loknath Ram S/o Late Jatru Ram Aged About 50 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village - Bumtel, Tahsil- Manora, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Education Officer Jashpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Block Education Officer Manora, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.01.23 11:08:25 +0530 2 / 5 For State : Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. Challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the order dated 26.09.2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.6/Block Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) whereby respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of his regularization on completion of 17 years of service. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Cook on Collector rate in department of respondent no. 01 as daily wager and has completed 17 years of continuous service. The petitioner having all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of Cook. He was initially appointed to the post of Cook on 26.09.2008 on collector rate as daily wager and since then he is continuously working on the said post as Daily Wage Employee and has completed 17 years of service. Petitioner had submitted his detailed representation Annexure P/2 on 26.09.2008 to the respondent authorities for considering his case for regular appointment on the post of Cook as he had already completed 17 years of service which is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is not considering petitioner for regularization is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature and also violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15 & 21 of 3 / 5 the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a daily wager since long. He would further submit that the State government has regularized the services of similarly situated daily wage employees on the basis of circular dated 05/03/2008, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for regularization of his services on the post of Cook. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner has not been engaged with the present department prior to 31/12/1997, he is not at all entitled for regularization as per circular dated 05/03/2008. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others held in para 11 as under: "11. 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." 4 / 5 7. 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 was not illegally appointed that too when there was a vacant post available, therefore, he cannot be deprived from regularization of his services.” 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) and in the matter of Jaggo (supra), this writ petition is disposed of permitting petition to submit fresh representation before the respondent no. 3 and 4 raising all the grounds, and in the event representation is submitted, concerned authority shall take decision on the same in an objective manner, adopting pragmatic approach, keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble 5 / 5 Supreme Court on the issue, expeditiously, preferably within an period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza