1 CGHC010217532022 2026:CGHC:28635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4901 of 2022 1 - Sunil Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad Pathak Aged About 52 Years R/o Gond Para, Near Ashok Rao's House Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Shradha Tiwari W/o Amitabh Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o D- 57 Vijayapuram Colony Face 1 Near Science College Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anand Rao Mahadik S/o Shree Ramchandra Rao Mahadik Aged About 46 Years R/o Chatterji Street , New Sarkanda Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Department Of Higher Education , Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Guru Ghasidas Central University Bilaspur Through The Registrar, Koni Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Human Resources And Development , Shastri Bhawan , New Delhi. ---- Respondents For petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For respective respondents : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate and Ms. Shotabdi Bagchi, Advocate Mr. RCS Deo Samant, PL and Mr. Abhishek Banjare, CGC Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.07.2026 -2- 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “i. To kindly quash the order of recovery dated 05/01/2013(ANEXURE 2 passed by the respondent Guru Ghasidas University. ii. To kindly quash the order dated 19/02/2010 (Annexure P13), issued by the Registrar Guru Ghasidas University. iii.To kindly quash the office memorandum dated 16/09/2010 and resolution dated 27/04/2010 (Annexure P14). iv. To kindly direct the Respondent no.2 to give full effect to the order of regularization of the Petitioners dated 26/08/2008. v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Pali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the services of the petitioners, who were daily-wage employees, were regularized by respondent No.2 vide order dated 26.08.2008. It is contended that said order was withdrawn by respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.02.2010 and said decision was challenged by similarly situated employees by filing numerous writ petitions. It is argued that those writ petitions were allowed and the order dated 19.02.2010 was quashed. It is further contended that the SLP preferred by the University before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed. Mr. Pali, Advocate would submit that this petition has been filed by three petitioners seeking relief of restoration of their position in service. He would contend that services of Petitioners No. 2 and 3 have already been restored vide order dated 16.02.2026, whereas, Petitioner No.1 has been singled out. He would pray for a direction to Respondent No. 2 to 3 consider the claim of the petitioner No.1 with regard to restoration of his services. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pali. He would contend that the petitioners approached this Court in the year 2022, whereas, the impugned order was passed on 19.02.2010 and thus, this petition suffers from delay and laches. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Samant, learned Panel Lawyer as well as Mr. Banjare, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Union of India would support the contentions made by Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The decision taken by respondent No.2 dated 16.02.2026 appears to be discriminatory as the claim of petitioners No.2 & 3 has been entertained, whereas, services of petitioner No.1 have not been restored without assigning sufficient reasons. Therefore, at this juncture, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner No.1 with regard to restoration of his services preferably within a period of 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha