1 2026:CGHC:23955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1915 of 2021  Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Rajak, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Barethpara, Khairagarh, Thana And Block Khairagarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Hasaud, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bhavan, And Sadak, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.06 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 and 10.11.4.2019 and further issue a direction to the respondent authorities for regularization to service of the petitioner on the post of Time Keeper. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.06.17 11:29:50 +0530 2 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially petitioner was appointed as daily-wage employee on the post of Time Keeper in the office of respondent No. 2 in the year 1996. He would contend that services of the petitioner were discontinued on 16.07.1998 and thereafter, he was reinstated vide order dated 29.11.2011 pursuant to order passed by the learned Labour Court. It is contended that a circular was issued by the State Government with regard to regularization of services of daily-wage employees on 05.03.2008, but the claim of the petitioner was not considered, and therefore, WPS No. 631 of 2016 was filed. He would contend that said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2017 and petitioner was permitted to make a representation before the respondents. It is argued that the representation made by the petitioner claiming therein regularization was considered and his services were regularized on the post of Untrained Labour vide order dated 15.04.2019. Mr. Rajput would submit that as the petitioner was working on the post of Time Keeper, therefore, the respondent authorities should have considered his claim for regularization on the said post. He would submit that petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2, and in turn, the said authority may be directed to decide the representation expeditiously strictly in accordance with the law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Deo, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would contend that services of the petitioner have already been regularized on the post of Untrained Labour vide order dated 15.04.2019. He 3 would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim regularization of his services on a particular post. He would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Rajput, Advocate, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2 within a period of 60 days from today, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide the representation in objective manner, preferably within a period of further 60 days. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant