1 2026:CGHC:22880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1793 of 2022  Abrar Ansari S/o Mohd. Kasim Aged About 44 Years R/o Mayapur Pani Tanki, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Devnarayan Kashyap, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.05 .2026 1. Mr. Devnarayan Kashyap, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur is present before this Court through video conferencing pursuant to order dated 23.04.2026. He would submit that Advocate has already been engaged on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Devnarayan Kashyap, his further presence is hereby dispensed with. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.15 11:20:27 +0530 2 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the petitioner for regularization looking to his 20 years of continues service. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on compassionate ground on 01.01.2001. In the month of July, 2011, he was engaged as Driver. He would contend that the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service and there is no complaint against him, but till date his claim for regularization has not been considered. He would contend that circular dated 05.03.2008 has been issued by the State Government, wherein, guidelines have been framed to consider the case of Daily Wage employee for regularization. It is contended that though the petitioner made representation before respondent No. 3, but till date no decision has been taken. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner is a Daily Wage employee and he was not appointed against sanctioned and vacant post, therefore, he has no right to claim regularization. He would submit that instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by respective Advocates and grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 and Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3, and the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the above-referred judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, preferably within a period of 90 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant