1 CGHC010039622024 2026:CGHC:29899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 706 of 2024 1 - Ramesh Chanda Bahesh S/o Shri Chaman Chanda Bahesh Aged About 41 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Madhuban Road, Dyalband, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Rajendra Dubey Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Supervisor, R/o Behind Lokswar Press, Khaparganj, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sandeep Choudhary S/o Shri Bhuthnarth Choudhary Aged About 52 Years Occupation-Supervisor, R/o Kranti Nagar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sujit Chouhan S/o Late Shri Shakar Lal Chouhan Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Sweeper, R/o Nikhil Ashram, Atal Avas Bahatrai, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Nageshwar Beriya S/o Late Shri Tukaram Beriya Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Sweeper, R/o Manohar Talkies, Karbala Road, Behind Kali Mandir, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jivan Mahanand S/o Shri Ramesh Mahanand Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Sweeper, R/o New Sarkanda, Muktidham Chowk, Behind Guru Vihar, Atal Alas Maa Sharda Gas Godam, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development 4th Floor, Block-D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.16 15:33:05 +0530 2 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Resp No.1 : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, PL For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Raj Shendge, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:- "10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from 05.03.2008 along with consequential benefits. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 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 petitioners." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been working under respondent No.2 as daily-rated employees 3 since the years 1999 and 2002 respectively and are continuing in service without any break. He would submit that despite rendering more than two decades of continuous service, their claim for regularization has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 solely on the ground that they were not appointed prior to 31.12.1997 as contemplated under the Circular dated 05.03.2008. He would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018, has dealt with the issue of regularization of daily-rated employees and the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down therein. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Corporation would oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He would submit that as per the Circular dated 05.03.2008, only those daily- rated employees who were appointed prior to 31.12.1997 are eligible for consideration for regularization. In the present case, the petitioners were engaged during the years 1999 to 2002 and, therefore, they do not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under the said Circular. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioners has rightly been rejected by the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 as they have no legal right to seek regularization under the Circular dated 05.03.2008. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) has held in paragraph 11 as under:- "11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc." 6. Considering the fact that the petitioners have been working under respondent No.2 since the years 1999 and 2002 respectively and are still continuing in service, this Court is of the considered opinion that their claim for regularization requires reconsideration in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners individually for regularization in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul