1 2026:CGHC:20854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3854 of 2026 1 - Amarjeet Singh Lahare S/o Vishnu Lal Lahare Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Tehsil - Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491661 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribe Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Department Of Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribe Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector (Tribal Welfare) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Welfare) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Apoorva Nigam, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.05.11 17:38:27 +0530 2 Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. To issue a writ and/ or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling the records from the respondent authorities concerned for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case; 10.2 To issue a writ and/or order in the nature of writ of Mandamus do issue for time bound disposal of the petitioner's representation dated 06/03/2024 for regularization of service of petitioner and/or extending the benefit of appropriate pays skill of temporary and permanent status of work charged contingency paid employee to the petitioner from the date of actual entitlement along with other consequential benefits including arrears etc. (ANNEXURE P-1) pending before the respondent number 4, in accordance with the applicable laws and provisions in the interest of justice within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 To issue a writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to pass an order for regularization of service of petitioner and/or extending the benefit of appropriate pays skill of temporary and permanent status of work charged contingency paid employee to the petitioner from the date of actual entitlement along with other consequential benefits including arrears etc. in the facts and circumstances of the case and on such terms and conditions 3 as the court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 10.4 To grant cost of the proceedings. 10.5 To grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for imparting complete and substantial justice to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner was appointed as contingency employee under the Contingency Service Establishment as a Peon (Waterman) in the Department of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes vide order dated 15.02.2008 by the memorandum of Collector on the basis of recommendations made in the meeting of Janpad/Nagar Panchayat, Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon and concurrence of Commissioner, Department of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Development, Raipur. Petitioner is working as Peon, in the respondent department as daily wages employee against duly sanctioned post. Petitioner have completed more than 18 years of service, however, he has not been regularized in the service. He submits that petitioner may be permitted to submit representation before Respondents No. 4 raising their grievance and further direction be issued to the concerned respondents to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners for regularization of his service within specified time frame. 4 3. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking limited prayer of submitting representation before the competent authority, he is having no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Claim as raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is continuously working as daily wage employee, on the post of Driver and Peon, for more than about 18 years. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo vs. Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the 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. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and 5 connected Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30th January 2026 has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization and have further directed for regularizing the appellants therein, in service. 8. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized 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 and observed thus: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 6 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. x x x 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 7 9. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is engaged as daily wage employee/ contractual employee for more than 18 years, the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 with regard to regularization of daily wage/temporary employee and the relief as claimed by petitioner for regularization of his service as also considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is disposed permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the Respondent No. 4, and if such a representation is submitted, the concerned authorities shall consider and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioner has completed of about 18 years as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of representation. 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi