1 CGHC010392202019 2026:CGHC:31281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9917 of 2019 Chaitram Kanwar, S/o. Late Itwari Ram Kanwar, Aged About 49 Years, R/o. Village Selpar, P.O. Seetagota, Tahsil Dongarhgarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter, Jail Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Durg, Durg Circle, Near 5 Building, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Conservator Of Forest And Incharge Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.22 16:53:02 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 22.07.2026 1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No.1703 of 2015) and other connected matters. 2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16.05.2017 in WPS No.1703 of 2015 (Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh) and other connected matters held in paragraph 25 & 26 as under :- “25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just, proper and legal. 26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these petitions is answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioners-workers holding that they would not fall in the category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigating before the Labour Court. 3 As a consequence, the workers in those cases where the claim has been rejected by the respective Respondents on the ground of there being break in service or the claim of the workers being rejected on the ground of their not serving the Respondents prior to 31.12.1997 are all set aside/quashed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of these petitioners- workers for regularization in accordance with the circular granting them the advantage of continuity of service from the date of their initial engagement till date.” 3. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in WPS No.1703 of 2015 (Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh) and other connected matters. 4. The State Government/ Competent Authority shall take necessary steps in this regard expeditiously. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok