1 / 5 2026:CGHC:1580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 194 of 2026 1 - Ramlal Ram S/o Bihanu Ram Aged About 35 Years Working As Chowkidar, Office Of District Education Officer, Jashpur C.G. 2 - Vishwanath Ram S/o Late Makund Ram Aged About 47 Years Working As Chowkidar, Diet. Jashpur, District- Jashpur C.G. 3 - Surajmani Pradhan S/o Laxman Pradhan Aged About 36 Years Working As Peon, Diet. Jashpur, District- Jashpur C.G. 4 - Fulwati Nagdev W/o Bisun Nagdev Aged About 36 Years Working As Peon, Diet. Jashpur, District- Jashpur C.G. 5 - Dipika Sanyasi W/o Pradeep Sanyasi Aged About 30 Years Working As Peon, Diet. Jashpur, District- Jashpur C.G. 6 - Kashmira Tirkey W/o Selestin Tirkey Aged About 37 Years Working As Peon, Office Of Assistant Block Education Officer, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur C.G. 7 - Sangeeta Bai W/o Chinna Ram Aged About 37 Years Working As Peon, Office Of Assistant Block Education Officer, Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur C.G. 8 - Amit Bhagat S/o Mehman Ram Bhagat Aged About 39 Years Working As Chowkidar, Office Of District Education Officer, Jashpur, District- Jashpur C.G. 9 - Padamveer Singh S/o Late Chandranath Singh Aged About 34 Years ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.01.23 11:06:02 +0530 2 / 5 Working As Peon, Office Of Assistant Block Education Officer, Bagicha, District- Jashpur C.G. 10 - Pooja Das W/o Ashok Das Aged About 32 Years Working As Peon, Office Of Assistant Block Education Officer, Kansabel, District- Jashpur C.G. 11 - Heeramuni Sidar S/o Uttam Ram Sidar Aged About 37 Years Working As Peon, Office Of Assistant Block Education Officer, Farsabahar, District- Jashpur C.G. 12 - Mangal Ram S/o Late Makund Ram Aged About 51 Years Working As Chowkidar, Govt. High School, Lodhma, District- Jashpur C.G. 13 - Pramod Kumar Bek S/o Kamil Bek Aged About 34 Years Working As Chowkidar, Govt. High School Jorandajhariya, Block Farsabahar, District- Jashpur C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 12/01/2026 3 / 5 1. Challenge in the instant Writ Petition is to the appointment orders of petitioners (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3/ District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.). 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioners are presently working on the post of Class-IV on Collector rate in department of respondent no. 01 as daily wagers and have completed more than 12 years of continuous service. The petitioners having all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of Class – IV employees. They were initially appointed to the post of Class-IV employees on collector rate as daily wager and since then they are continuously working on the said post as Daily Wage Employee and have completed more than 12 years of service. Petitioners have made several requests and representations to the respondent authorities for considering their case for regular appointment on the post of Class- IV employees as they had already completed more then 12 years of service which are pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities of not considering petitioners for regularization is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in nature and also violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are daily wagers 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 12/09/2011, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services on the post of Class- IV employees. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment 4 / 5 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 petitioners and submits that since the petitioners have not been engaged with the present department prior to 06.09.2011, they are not at all entitled for regularization as per circular dated 12.09.2011. 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." 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 5 / 5 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 petitioners to submit fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 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 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