1 2026:CGHC:23001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3185 of 2025 1 - Umashankar S/o Shri Sada Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 2 - Kuldhar S/o Shri Sukman Aged About 51 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Champa W/o Shri Jagdev Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Hemwati W/o Shri Padam Aged About 56 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 5 - Ratan S/o Shri Parmanand Aged About 54 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 6 - Hari S/o Shri Nadgu Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 7 - Astu S/o Shri Dhudhi Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 8 - Chingdu S/o Shri Ayatu Aged About 52 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.05.15 18:23:42 +0530 2 9 - Kushal S/o Shri Gabdu Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 10 - Chamru Ram S/o Shri Sukhdev Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 11 - Ghanshyam S/o Shri Pandu Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee, Working Under The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantrlaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Vice-Chancellor Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidhyalay, Labhandi, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Registrar Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidhyalay, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Principal The S.G. Krishi Mahavidyalaya (I.G.K.V.), Jagdalpur, Distt. - Jagdalpur (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 14/05 /2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondents No. 2 & 3. 3 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction towards the Respondents No. 2 & 3 to regularize the services of the petitioners with retrospective effect, considering the notifications dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/3) and the judgment dated 23.01.2024 passed in W.A. No. 21/2024 (Annexure P/6). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were engaged as daily-wage employee from 1989 to 1994. He contended that the petitioners have made several oral requisitions and written representations for regularizing them in service as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008. The prayer made by the petitioners have not been considered which made the petitioners to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition bearing writ petition WP (S) No. 5887/2024 and the aforementioned writ petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner therein has brought to the notice of the Court about passing of an order by the Division Bench of this Court in WA. No. 21/2024 decided on 23.01.2024 wherein, the similarly placed daily-wage employees were directed to be 4 considered for regularization. He submits that the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioner in light of the decision in WA No. 21/2024 within specified time frame. However, the claim of the petitioner has not been finalized till date. He contended that according to his instructions, based on the decision passed in W.A. No. 21/2024, the appellants therein have been regularized in service and therefore, petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 4 would not oppose the submission of counsel for the petitioners so far as it relates to the decision in W.A. No. 21/0224 and direction issued therein, by the Division Bench. However, he submits that the case of the appellants therein was re-examined and out of 21 only 17 employees have been found fit for regularization and accordingly, they have been regularized. He contended that it is not the dispute that the petitioners herein are engaged in between 01.12.1989 to 31.12.1997, examining the records of the petitioners herein and the directives issued by the High Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 5887/2024 and other connected matters, to have taken a decision vide (Annexure P/1) mentioning therein that the proposal was forwarded to the State Government seeking permission to regularize the services of the petitioners as 230 posts are lying vacant. 5 4. He also submits that in the order, it is recorded that the case of the 17 employees who have been regularized stand on a different footing than the petitioners. He also submits that proposal for regularization was forwarded to State Government by the Respondents/University, however, the State Government has not informed that any decision is taken on the proposal and therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. He submits that prior permission of the State Government is necessarily required because it is the State Government who funds for running the University as also, making payment of the salary/wages to the employees engaged in the University. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State though opposes the submission on merits, however, upon putting query as to whether any decision has been taken by the State Government on the proposal forwarded by the University for regularizing the services of the daily-wage employees like petitioners on the 230 posts lying vacant. He submits that in reply filed by the Respondents/State no such pleading has been specifically made in reply. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that under the Right to Information Act, 2005 petitioners have obtained the information with regard to the vacancy available with the Respondent/University. 6 Petitioners were informed that 430 posts were lying vacant and in those posts, petitioners can be regularized. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petitions. 8. The factual submissions made by the counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were engaged in between 01.02.1989 to 31.12.1997 in particular, from the year 1989 till 1994 is not disputed. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is apparent that the petitioners have been engaged prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (Supra). The State Government pursuant to the decision in the case of Umadevi (Supra) has issued circular for regularizing the services of the daily-wage employees/temporary employees engaged prior to 1989 or engaged in between 01.01.1989 till 31.12.1997. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the claim of the daily-wage employee engaged in between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 have allowed the writ appeals filed by the appellants therein directing the Respondent/University to consider the claim of the appellants afresh in accordance with law and as submitted by the counsel for the Respondent/University, 17 employees, who completed 10 years from the date of engagement and have the requisite qualifications have been regularized in service. 7 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the Respondent/University is dependent on the funds to be sanctioned by the State Government has sought permission and the permission of the State Government is still awaited, I find it appropriate to quash the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 3 without waiting the decision by the State Government and to direct the State Government to consider the proposal forwarded by the Respondent/University sympathetically in an objective manner, considering that the petitioners are serving with the Respondent/University continuously for last about more than 30 years and further that, many of the similarly placed employees have already been regularized pursuant to the order dated 23.01.2024 in W.A. No. 21/2024 by the Division Bench and therefore, the petitioners herein cannot be discriminated. Accordingly, the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. 10. The Respondent/University is directed to take decision afresh based on the decision of the State Government on the proposal forwarded by the University for regularization of the services of the petitioners against the vacant posts as on 23.01.2025 of 230 posts and according to information supplied to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, 413 posts lying vacant, expeditiously preferably within a further period 02 months from the date of receipt of the order. The 8 State Government is also directed to consider the proposal within one month from the date of receipt of the order. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep