1 2026:CGHC:6217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4916 of 2021 • Janiram Maravi S/o Shri Kejuram Maravi Aged About 50 Years Working As Security Guard (Chowkidar) At Forest Range Kosabadi Lormi Range General District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Office Of Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Divisional Forest Officer Office Of Forest Divisional Officer, Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukhs, Advocate along with Ms. Azka Aalam, counsel. For State/Respondents : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to further direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the service DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 of the petitioner and record of committee. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order / decision date 15.01.2021 (vide Annexure-P/7) issued by the respondent No.4 / Divisional Forest Officer, Office of Forest Divisional Officer, Mungeli (C.G.). 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to re-consider case of the petitioner for his regularization on completion of 18 years of service as daily wager employee to the post of Security Guary in the Forest Range Kosabadi, Lormi Range General, District Mungeli (C.G.). 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to futher direct the respondent authorities to frame the guidelines in respect of regularization of the daily wages employees who have been appointed after creation of State of Chhattisgarh and completed more than 10 years of service in light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. Reported in 2018 (8) SCC 238 – 2018 (2) SCC (L&S) 472 and in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Versus M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC (L&S) 826 = 2010 (9) SCC 247 and consider the case of the petitioner in light of the said judicial pronounce as a one time measure. 10.5 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year, 2002 as Suraksha Shramik at Forest Range Kosabadi, Lormi Range General, District Mungeli (C.G.) as daily wager against the sanctioned and vacant post. Since then, petitioner is continuously working on the said post as daily wagers employee and has completed about more than 24 years of service. He submits that petitioner requested the respondent authorities to regularize his services, which was turned down by the respondent authorities vide order dated 15.01.2021 (Annexure-P/7). He submits that the petitioner 3 turning down the claim of the petitioner by the respondents is bad in law in light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Umadevi (3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, Vinod Kumar and others Versus Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024. Recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Another, reported in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018. He further submits that in identical fact situation, this Court in WPS No.5629/2024 relying upon the above stated judgment, directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner therein for regularization. Thus, this petition may also be disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the above quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that if a representation submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time, the respondent authorities shall re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in light of the above quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire record carefully. 6. In case of Vinod Kumar and Others (supra), while considering the entitlement of temporary employees to regularization in service, it has been held as under:- “7. The judgment inUmadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made 4 illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is reproduced hereunder : (SCC p. 42) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N. Nanjundappa [ R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and 5 regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” (emphasis in original) 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations. 9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment [Vinod Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016 SCC OnLine All 4489] of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularisation in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularisation within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.” 7. In the case of Jaggo (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the persons in regular service for more than 10 years are required to be regularized. Relevant portion of Jaggo (supra) is extracted below for ready reference:- “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served 6 continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below: “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…” 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the 7 initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate 8 long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. 9 • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on 10 its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for 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. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 8. Thus, taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties, the petitioner is permitted to submit representation before the concerned respondent authorities, claiming his regularization within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such representation being made, the concerned respondent authorities shall take decision upon it keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 11 Court in case of Umadevi (3) and Others (supra), Vinod Kumar and Others (supra), Jaggo (supra) and Dharam Singh and Others (supra). The decision on the representation submit by the petitioner shall be taken within a period of 90 days from its receipt. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha