1 CGHC010211962022 2026:CGHC:29238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4858 of 2022  Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Late Manharan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Parsada (Ba) Post Bemcha, Tahsil And Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Capital Complex, New Raipur Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Kodar Pariyojna, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer Kodar Nahar, Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.07 .2026 1. This petition has been filed by widow of daily wage employee, namely, Manharan Lal Chandrakar, who died on 08.10.2016. In this petition, the petitioner has claimed regularization of service of her husband and consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner’s husband was appointed as Daily wage labourer under the respondents in the year 1985-86, and subsequently, his services were terminated along with 47 employees. He would contend that the decision taken by the respondent authorities was subject matter of reference before the learned Labour Court, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.14 10:50:35 +0530 2 Raipur under Section 31(3) read with Section 61 of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. He would contend that the learned Labour Court decided said matter in favour of the petitioner’s husband and other similarly situated employees vide order dated 23.01.1999, and order passed by the Labour Court was maintained by the learned Industrial Court. He would submit that WPL No. 114 of 2013 was filed by the respondents assailing the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of employees for regularization according to circular dated 05.03.2008. It is argued by Mr. Johri that the services of 32 employees have already been regularized in the department, but the name of the petitioner’s husband was not considered. He would contend that action of respondents is discriminatory in nature, and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner’s husband with regard to regularization. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner’s husband has no right to claim regularization after death. He would contend that in the order dated 05.02.2018 passed in WPL No. 114 of 2013 and WPS No. 4311 of 2013, it is specifically observed that the workers involved in the case shall not claim any benefit which has accrued to them except for the order of reinstatement. He would submit that there was no direction to consider the claim of employees for regularization. He would contend that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 3 placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband was working with the respondent department since 1985-86 and he worked for 35-36 years of service. It is informed by Mr. Johri that out of 47 employees, claim of 32 employees with regard to regularization has already been considered, and therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2, and in turn, the said authority shall decide representation so made by the petitioner in light of circular dated 05.03.2008. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant