1 CGHC010119692021 2026:CGHC:28168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2615 of 2021 1 - Ravindra Pandey S/o Shri Kalika Prasad Pandey, Aged About 49 Years R/o. Daihanpara, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle Jharabhata Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Forest Range Officer, Forest Range - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board NIRMALA RAO 2 08.07.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 04/06/2020 (Annexure P-1) and directed to regularized the services of petitioner. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities to consider the case of Petitioner for regularization taking in account of seniority. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities, to consider the case of Petitioner regarding regularization on the post of Suraksha Shramik in pursuance of circulars. 10.5 Any other relief which may Hon'ble Court think fit in the circumstances.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage employee on the post of Suraksha Shramik under the respondents in the office of Forest Range Officer, Forest Range – Bilaspur, District Bilaspur with effect from 1.2.1993. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were discontinued by the respondents and therefore, an application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court for adjudication under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is argued that the learned Labour Court passed an award of reinstatement without back-wages on 14.11.2011. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, his claim with regard to regularization was not considered and his representation was rejected vide order dated 4.6.2020. He would 3 contend that earlier WP(S) No.6765 of 2019 was filed claiming therein regularization, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2019, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of regularization. It is argued that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post and an order of reinstatement was passed by the learned Labour Court on 14.11.2011. Thus, the period of litigation should have been counted as part of the service period by the respondent authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner did not complete 10 years of service in the establishment, therefore, his claim with regard to regularization has been rejected and thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage employee under the respondents on 1.2.1993. The services of the petitioner were discontinued by the department and subsequently, an award of reinstatement was passed by the learned Labour Court. Pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated in the service. He moved an application for regularization and when no action was taken, he filed WP(S) No.6765 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2019 wherein and whereby the respondent authorities were directed to consider the claim 4 of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1. 6. The representation so made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 4.6.2020. It appears that the respondent authorities failed to reckon the period of litigation as part of the service period, concluded that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service and consequently, rejected the representation of the petitioner. The approach of the respondent authorities appears to be erroneous. 7. Learned Labour Court reinstated the petitioner and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated. The period spent in litigation would be treated as part of the service period and therefore, the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur dated 4.6.2020 appears to be erroneous. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur dated 4.6.2020 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi