1 CGHC010219052021 2026:CGHC:28399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4740 of 2021 1. Ajoo Ram S/o Latelu Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dokrabhatha, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2. Hori Lal S/o Mangatu Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dokrabhatha, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Lokeshwar S/o Banau Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dokrabhatha, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Sant Lal S/o Balva Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dokrabhatha, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5. Kunjlal S/o Premchand Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kerabori, Tehsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Engineer Office Of Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resources Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Executive Engineer Water Resources Division Chhuiekhadan, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Shriyadeep Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 9.7.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:- i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to produce the entire records of the case particularly the records of the petitioners for consideration of regularization of their services, for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing the impugned order dated 26/3/2021 and direct the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their actual entitlement with all consequential benefits. iii) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case. This petition, may be allowed with cost. 2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioners were appointed as daily rated employees under the respondent-department on 3.5.2005 and they were retrenched by the respondent No. 3 on 30.10.2008. Said decision was assailed by the petitioners before the learned Labour Court in Case No. 237/ID Act/ Ref./2011. Learned Labour Court allowed the statement of claim filed by the petitioners and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners without back-wages. Subsequently, petitioners joined on their original posts on 1.1.2013 and they are still working on 3 the same post. State Government challenged the award passed by learned Labour Court in WPL No. 60 of 2013 and same was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.1.2021. Meanwhile, petitioners preferred WPS No. 524 of 2019 seeking therein regularization. Writ petition was disposed directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioners but the representation moved by the petitioners was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 26.3.2021. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 rejected the representation made by the petitioners solely on the ground that they were appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997 therefore circular dated 5.3.2008 would not attract on them. She further submits that as petitioners have been working with the department for more than 20 years, respondent authorities should have considered the claim of petitioners with regard to regularization. She prays to allow this writ petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submits that petitioners were appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997 therefore they would not come within the purview of circular dated 5.3.2008. He further submits that petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts and they were never interviewed therefore they have no right to claim regularization. He also submits that respondent No. 2 rejected the representation made by the petitioners after due consideration and 4 this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) In the present case, petitioners have been continuously working with the department for more than 15 years and their claim for regularization has been rejected solely on the ground that they were appointed after the cut-off date i. e. 31.12.1997. In my considered view, it is not necessary for an establishment or a State instrumentality to always apply circular dated 5.3.2008 while dealing with the cases of regularization. The authority concerned has to consider nature of employment, length of service, past record of employee, sanctioned vacancy etc. It is well settled principle of law that prolonged temporary engagement of daily wagers amounts exploitation and defeats constitutional mandate. 7) The aspect of regularization has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaggo Versus Union of India1 in which it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under : 26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This or misapplied to judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and deny "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be 1. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032 5 considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases appointments are not illegal, but merely lack where their adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for 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. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 8) Recently, in Shripal Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that Uma Devi judgment 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 :- 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 6 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. 9) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 26.3.2021 is hereby quashed and matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the claim of petitioners keeping in mind the observations made herein-above. It is expected that entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 2 within period of 150 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10) In result, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.13 14:34:46 +0530