1 2026:CGHC:1034 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8597 of 2023 1 - Punaram Sahu S/o Late Govind Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Haldi, Ward No. 51, Post Office Mohara, Police Station Lalbagh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 10.2- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue a writ of mandamus and to command the respondents to comply the circular dated 05.03.2008. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.3- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to grant regularization to the petitioner from 13- 8-2008 till the date of retirement 30.06.2021 and to direct the respondents to pay the regular pay scale to the petitioner from 13-8- 2008 till the age of 62 years i.e. 30.06.2021. 10.4- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondents to pay the gratuity and pension with interest. 10.5- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that, the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent Department as a daily-wage Tractor Driver prior to 31.08.1987. The petitioner has been in continuous service under respondent No. 2 since his initial engagement and has been discharging his duties diligently and without interruption. His salary has regularly been paid by the respondents and credited into his bank account, thereby acknowledging the continuity and subsistence of his service. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.08.1987, the post of Tractor Driver held by the petitioner was abolished. However, without any break in service, respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioner on casual/contingency wages with effect from 01.09.1987 and assigned him duties as a Vehicle Driver. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to perform duties of driving departmental vehicles, including LMV vehicles, and was formally assigned such duties vide order dated 03.11.2007. Thus, from 01.09.1987 till his date of superannuation on 30.06.2021, the petitioner continuously worked 3 as a Driver under the respondent Department. The State Government, through the General Administration Department, issued a circular dated 05.03.2008, followed by another circular dated 16.08.2012, providing for regularization of daily-wage, work- charged, and contingency-paid employees who were appointed prior to 31.12.1988. Clause ‘A’ of the circular dated 05.03.2008 specifically mandates regularization of such employees and does not prescribe any requirement of educational qualification for those appointed prior to 31.12.1988. Despite the petitioner squarely falling within the ambit of the said circular, the respondents failed to regularize his services. On the contrary, several similarly situated employees junior to the petitioner were granted the benefit of regularization by the respondents, thereby violating the principle of parity and equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6080/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17.09.2018 with a direction to the respondents to scrutinize the petitioner’s claim and decide the same in light of the circular dated 05.03.2008. However, when the respondents failed to comply with the said order within the stipulated period, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 198/2019. In the contempt proceedings, the respondents submitted a reply stating that the petitioner’s claim could not be considered due to non-availability of sanctioned vacant posts, while simultaneously 4 stating that steps were being taken to increase the number of posts. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 6166/2019 challenging the respondents’ order dated 03.04.2019. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14.08.2019 with a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the State Government policy dated 05.03.2008. Despite repeated judicial directions, the respondents again failed to comply, compelling the petitioner to file Contempt Petition No. 173/2020. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for regularization on the sole ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification for the post of Tractor Driver. Based on the said rejection order, the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2021 while still being treated as a daily-wage/contingency-paid employee and was denied all retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, and other consequential benefits, which would have accrued had his services been regularized. The petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the express provisions of the circular dated 05.03.2008, particularly Clause ‘A’ thereof, and that the respondents have acted in blatant disregard of statutory rules, 5 binding government policy, and repeated directions issued by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed much prior to the cut-off date of 31.12.1988 and, therefore, his case is squarely governed by Clause ‘A’ of the General Administration Department circular dated 05.03.2008. It is emphatically contended that the said clause mandates regularization of daily-wage and contingency-paid employees appointed before 31.12.1988 and does not impose any condition relating to educational qualification. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground of lack of educational qualification is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the respondents have completely misapplied the provisions of the circular dated 05.03.2008 by erroneously invoking conditions applicable to employees appointed between 01.01.1989 and 31.12.1997, which fall under Clause ‘B’ of the circular. The petitioner’s appointment being prior to 31.12.1988, the application of such conditions is wholly misconceived and contrary to the policy decision of the State Government. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner rendered uninterrupted service for nearly 35 years till his superannuation and that his engagement was at worst irregular and not illegal. In view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo vs. Union of India, and Dharam Singh & Others vs. State of U.P., the 6 petitioner is entitled to regularization as a one-time measure, particularly when he has worked for more than ten years against sanctioned posts without the protection of any interim court order. It is also contended that the respondents themselves had proposed regularization of the petitioner vide proposal dated 04.06.2009, which clearly demonstrates the respondents’ acknowledgment of the petitioner’s eligibility. However, the said proposal was never implemented without assigning any cogent reason, thereby rendering the respondents’ action arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 70(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, the competent authority is empowered to create and increase posts as per administrative necessity. The plea of non-availability of sanctioned posts, therefore, is untenable, especially when similarly situated employees have already been regularized by the respondents by exercising the said statutory powers. It is further argued that denial of regularization to the petitioner, while extending the same benefit to similarly placed employees, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been deprived not only of regular pay and service benefits during his tenure but also of retiral benefits post superannuation, which amounts to grave injustice. Learned counsel lastly submits that even though the petitioner has already retired on 30.06.2021, he is entitled to notional regularization with all consequential benefits, including 7 fixation of pay, arrears, pensionary benefits, and gratuity, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Others and Shripal & Another. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 deserves to be quashed and the petitioner’s services deserve to be regularized with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the petitioner was never appointed against a sanctioned regular post and continued only as a daily- wage/contingency-paid employee throughout his service tenure. Mere long continuance in service does not confer any vested or enforceable right upon the petitioner to claim regularization as a matter of course, particularly in the absence of compliance with the prescribed recruitment rules. Learned State Counsel further submits that the regularization policy of the State Government, including the circular dated 05.03.2008, cannot be applied mechanically and is subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions, availability of sanctioned posts, and suitability of the employee. It is argued that the petitioner was found unsuitable for regularization as he did not possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed for the post of Tractor Driver/Driver, and therefore the competent authority rightly rejected his claim by passing the order dated 14.10.2019 after due consideration. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in 8 accordance with law and policy, and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. The respondents have also taken bona fide steps for creation and enhancement of posts, which necessarily involves a multi-stage administrative process, and delay in such process cannot be a ground to compel regularization contrary to statutory rules. Learned State Counsel submits that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, including Umadevi and subsequent decisions, do not mandate regularization in every case of long service and, on the contrary, caution against backdoor entry into public service. Since the petitioner retired as a daily-wage employee and never held a regular post, he is not entitled to claim post-retirement regularization or consequential pensionary benefits. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has already been considered multiple times pursuant to directions of this Court and his claim has been rejected by a reasoned order. Therefore, no further interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. The core issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner, merely on account of long continuance in service and on the strength of the circular dated 05.03.2008, can claim regularization with retrospective effect and consequential 9 monetary and retiral benefits, particularly after his superannuation. 8. This Court finds that the circular dated 05.03.2008 is an executive policy decision which provides a framework for consideration of regularization subject to fulfillment of conditions such as availability of sanctioned posts, suitability of the employee, and compliance with applicable service rules. The said circular does not confer an automatic or indefeasible right of regularization. Regularization under such policy remains a discretionary administrative exercise and cannot be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus unless a clear statutory right is established. 9. It is evident from the record that the petitioner’s claim was considered by the respondents on multiple occasions pursuant to directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petitions and contempt proceedings. Ultimately, the competent authority passed a reasoned order dated 14.10.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for regularization on the ground of non-fulfillment of requisite eligibility conditions, including suitability for appointment on a regular post. This Court does not find any procedural illegality, perversity, or mala fide in the decision-making process adopted by the respondents. 10. The contention of the petitioner that Clause ‘A’ of the circular dated 05.03.2008 completely exempts employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 from all eligibility conditions, including educational qualification, cannot be accepted in its absolute form. The circular 10 cannot be read in isolation or in derogation of statutory recruitment rules governing the post. Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules nor can they compel regularization in the absence of sanctioned posts or prescribed qualifications. 11. It is also significant to note that the petitioner is seeking regularization with retrospective effect from 13.08.2008 and consequential monetary benefits till his retirement. In this regard, the law is well settled that retrospective regularization, promotion, or grant of service benefits is impermissible unless expressly provided under the rules. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, has categorically held that no retrospective service benefits can be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre, as such action would disturb settled rights and is contrary to service jurisprudence and it was held thus:- “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it 11 was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three- Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent- writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the 12 respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters 13 of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have 14 already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the 15 quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.” 16 13. The reliance placed by the petitioner on judgments such as Umadevi, Jaggo, and Dharam Singh does not advance his case. The judgment in Umadevi clearly cautions against regularization being treated as a mode of appointment and reiterates that long service by itself does not create a right to regularization. Subsequent judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts, as they pertain to cases where employees were working against sanctioned posts or where statutory provisions enabled such regularization, which is not the situation in the present case. The plea of parity raised by the petitioner is also untenable. Parity can be claimed only when appointments, service conditions, and eligibility criteria are identical. In the absence of material demonstrating that similarly situated employees were regularized despite being ineligible or without sanctioned posts, the petitioner cannot claim equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. This Court further finds substance in the submission of the learned State Counsel that after superannuation, the petitioner cannot seek regularization or pensionary benefits as a matter of right when he was never appointed on a regular post during his service tenure. Pension and gratuity are statutory benefits flowing from regular service, and a daily-wage or contingency-paid employee, in the absence of statutory entitlement, cannot claim the same through judicial intervention. 17 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal or statutory right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order dated 14.10.2019 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity so as to call for judicial interference. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE 18 Head-Note When an employee has already superannuated and is no longer in service, no claim for grant of service benefits with retrospective effect is maintainable.”