1 2026:CGHC:23726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2227 of 2021  Sishir Kumar Gaykwad S/o Late Shri S. P. Gaykawad Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Driver With Forest Division Raipur As Daily Wages Employee, R/o House No. 321, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Divisional Forest Officer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 15.6.2026 1) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs: 10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction for quashing the impugned order dated 10.12.2020(Annexure-P/1) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.15 17:03:05 +0530 2 10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon'ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction directing the respondent authorities to regularize the service of petitioner against the post of driver w.e.f. the date when the juniors driver of the department were regularized, with all consequential benefits with suitable interest. 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged by the respondent department in the year 1995-96 as Driver on daily wage basis and he is working till date with the respondent department. He contends that claim of petitioner for regularization was not considered therefore he preferred WPS No. 3166 of 2020 wherein a direction was issued to respondents therein to consider the representation but the said representation was rejected vide order dated 10.12.2020 on two grounds - (i) petitioner had not completed ten years of service at the relevant time and (ii) his initial appointment was irregular. He prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was never appointed against sanctioned and vacant post and he was appointed after 31.12.1997 therefore his claim with regard to regularization is misconceived and he cannot take shelter of circular dated 5.3.2008. He contends that respondent No. 2 duly scrutinized the claim of petitioner and rejected the same on the 3 ground that petitioner had not completed ten years of service at the relevant time. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Versus Uma Devi and Others1. He further contends that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 5) It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially engaged by the department in the year 1995-96 on daily wage basis and he is still working with the respondent No. 2. Petitioner preferred WPS No. 3166 of 2020 claiming therein regularization, which was disposed directing respondent authorities to consider the representation of petitioner. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.12.2020 rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that he had not completed ten years of regular service as required according to circular dated 5.3.2008. 6) In Dharam Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Another2, the claim for regularization of daily wage employees, who were engaged w.e.f. 8.4.1997 was rejected by the State citing financial constraints. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered 1. (2006) 4 SCC 1 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 4 various aspects such as misuse of “temporary” labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits. It was held that 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. It was also held that State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer and it cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Relevant paragraphs 17 and 18 read as under :- 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. 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, 5 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. 7) With regard to Uma Devi (supra), respondent authorities failed to establish that appointment of petitioner was illegal and arbitrary. In Shripal Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitation through long term “ad-hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. Relevant paragraph 14 reads as under :- 14.The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 8) In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the principles articulated in Shripal (supra) apply with full force to the present 3. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 6 case. Furthermore, the petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service with the department in the year 2020 when the order impugned was passed. Accordingly, the order dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 9) In result, the instant writ petition is allowed. 10) It is directed that the respondents No. 2 shall re-consider the claim of petitioner with regard to regularization of services in light of the observations made herein-above. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed by the authority concerned within period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a