1 CGHC010263462026 2026:CGHC:31461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5569 of 2026 Suman Bakhla S/o Shri Jagmohan Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Khukhri Baghima Balrampur District- Balrampur -Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Balrampur District- Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3. Commissioner Municipal Corporation Balrampur District- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Parwati Suryawanshi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. By this petition, the petitioner seek a relief to regularize his services considering the fact that he is working since last two decades. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage employee on compassionate ground on 15.04.1998. He would contend that the petitioner has completed JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.24 10:57:46 +0530 2 more than 20 years of his service and there is no complaint against him, but till date his claim for regularization has not been considered. He would contend that circular dated 05.03.2008 has been issued by the State Government, wherein, guidelines have been framed to consider the case of Daily Wage employee for regularization. It is contended that though the petitioner made representation before respondent No. 3, but till date no decision has been taken. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose and submits that the petitioner is Daily Wage employee and he was not appointed against sanctioned and vacant post, therefore, he has no right to claim regularization. She further submits that instant petitions deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by respective Advocates and grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 and Jaggo v. Union of India and 3 others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3, and the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the above-referred judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, preferably within a period of 90 days. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petitions are hereby disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti