1 2026:CGHC:6489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 718 of 2024 1. Ramkumar S/o Suberam Gadariya Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Kodiya, Post - Devaribhat, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Presently Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer Water Resources Division - Chuikhadan, District - Rajnandgaon (Presently Khairagarh-Chuikhadan- Gandai) (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Kumarani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 05/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 18.4.2023 by which respondent No.2 rejected representation of petitioner seeking regularization in service. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.02.07 17:12:24 +0530 2 2. Facts of case, in brief, are that petitioner joined as a daily wage employee in Water Resources Department on 4.5.1998. On 30.6.2007 petitioner was discontinued from service without any notice or retrenchment compensation, which was put to challenge by him before the Labour Court. Vide award dated 9.10.2012 learned Labour Court ordered for reinstatement of petitioner in service. Petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 22.1.2013. After completion of 10 years of service, petitioner submitted representation before the respondent Department on 22.2.2023 to regularize his services. Representation submitted by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.4.2023 on the ground that as per Circular dated 5.3.2008 issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh Raipur, services of the daily wage employees engaged in between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 are to be only regularized as per law and as petitioner has been engaged after 31.12.1997, he is not eligible for regularization in service under Circular dated 5.3.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has already put in more than two decades as daily wager in the respondent Department and as such, he is entitled for benefit of regularization. However, the respondent department has rejected claim of petitioner for regularization on the ground 3 that petitioner does not fulfill requirement under the Circular dated 5.3.2008. He submits that daily wagers, who are in continuous service for more than 10 years, are required to be regularized and for that, the benefit of ‘one time measure’ could not come into the way. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Dharam Singh & ors vs. State of UP & another, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818. He further contended that in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 also petitioner is fit to be considered for regularization as he has already served uninterruptedly more than two decades in respondent Department and refusal of the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioner is violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submits that under such circumstances, this writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to regularize the service of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that as per Circular dated 5.3.2008, services of only those daily waged employees are to be regularized who were engaged in service prior to 31.12.1997, as one time measure. Since the 4 petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee after 31.12.1997, claim of petitioner for regularization in service is rejected, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused documents on record. 6. Undisputed facts reveal that petitioner was engaged as Labourer on daily wage basis in Water Resources Department on 4.5.1998. Petitioner submitted representation before respondent department seeking regularization on the post on which he is working for more than ten years. Representation of petitioner was considered. Upon consideration, petitioner was not found fit for regularization in service under the Circular dated 5.3.2008. Consequently, petitioner’s representation was rejected vide order dated 18.4.2023. 7. The State Government has issued Circular dated 05.03.2008 regarding regularization of service of daily-wages / adhoc/ temporary employees. This circular is said to have been issued in compliance of the directions issued in Uma Devi’s case (supra). According to this circular, daily wagers/ad hoc appointees appointed on or before 31.12.1997 and continued uninterruptedly for 10 years were to be considered for regularization. 5 8. The judgment in case of Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles. 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. In other words, the decision in Uma Devi (supra) was never intended to penalize employees with long years of service, performing necessary functions of the organization. It was only intended to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments. 9. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others Vs. State of Jharkhand & others, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had extensively dealt with Uma Devi’s case (supra) and the concept of regularization was given a pragmatic interpretation and ultimately concluded that the daily wagers or contract workers who had completed 10 years of service should be regularized. “5. The decision in Umadevi (3), was intended to put a full stop to the somewhat pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally appointing daily-wage workers and continuing with them indefinitely. In fact, in para 49 of the Report, it was pointed out that the rule of law requires appointments to be made in a constitutional manner and the State 6 cannot be permitted to perpetuate an irregularity in the matter of public employment which would adversely affect those who could be employed in terms of the constitutional scheme. It is for this reason that the concept of a one- time measure and a cut-off date was introduced in the hope and expectation that the State would cease and desist from making irregular or illegal appointments and instead make appointments on a regular basis. 7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that 7 State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut- off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation 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 Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 10. In case of Jaggo (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration long period of continuous service of petitioners therein while validating their claims for regularization of their services. Relevant para of said decision is quoted below for ready reference:- "10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence 8 suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional." In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Jaggo's case (supra), has also reiterated and clarified the spirit of Uma Devi's (supra) judgment as such; 9 “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 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. 11. In case of Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327, Hon'ble Apex Court had held that mere procedural formalities cannot stand in the way of regularizing service of an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but who has rendered services akin to that of a regular employee, over a substantial period of time, in the capacity of a regular employee. It has been observed in the relevant paragraphs (i.e. para 6 & 7) that; "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 10 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..." 12. Recently, in SLP (C) No.30762/2024, parties being Bhola Nath vs State of Jharkhand & ors, decided on 31.1.2026, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring its earlier decisions on the very issue, has concluded thus:- “13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India10, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and 11 stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam11, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India12, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. 13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P.13, this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised 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. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that 12 decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason. 13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. FINAL CONCLUSION: 14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly 13 arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 13. A bare reading of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court would reveal that long and uninterrupted service rendered by a temporary employee etc. extending well beyond 10 years could not be brushed aside. Essence of their employment had to be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, integral nature of their work and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 14 14. Recently, in case of Union of India vs K. Velajagan and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 837 has observed that decision in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularization. 15. In case at hand, it is evident that petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis on a sanctioned post, his engagement has been periodically extended/renewed. The order of discontinuation of petitioner from service was subjected to challenge before the learned Labour Court. An award of reinstatement without back-wages was passed in favour of petitioner on 9.10.2012. Thereafter, petitioner was taken back in service by respondents and he is working with respondents since then. In the above facts of the case, service of petitioner is to be calculated from the first date of his engagement i.e. 4.5.1998 and not from the date of his reinstatement, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being WPS No.1703/2015 (Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors), decided on 16.5.2017. In above decision it is held as under:- “23. Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008 also being the circular of the State Government issued keeping in mind the welfare of 15 the poor workers and has been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed on daily wage basis and the post against which these persons are discharging so as to subserve the common good that can occur to the workers for the long service rendered by the respective workmen. 24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008.” 16. From the aforementioned facts it is clear that the petitioner’s entry into contractual service cannot be classified as an illegal appointment and his long uninterrupted service in the respondent Department strongly indicates that petitioner‟s service is essential to the functioning of respondent Department, and his role is of a perennial nature. 17. Taking into consideration the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments referred to and discussed above; the facts and circumstances of case referred above, particularly the long period of continuous 16 service of more than two decades rendered by petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for regularization in service. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order rejecting representation of petitioner seeking regularization in service is set aside. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for regularization of his services in accordance with law in the post on which he is discharging his service now within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-