1 CGHC010210052022 2026:CGHC:32200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4837 of 2022 • Gopal S/o Shri Derha Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Lafinkhurd, Tahsil and District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Kodar Pariyojna, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3. Executive Engineer Kodar Nahar, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court may kind enough to issue a writ/Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions and to direct the respondents to comply the circulars dated 5-3-2008 & 16-8- 2012 and to regularize the services of the Petitioner by quashing Annexure P-1. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.28 14:07:20 +0530 2 10.3-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue any Writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions and to command the respondents to pay the service benefits from the date of regularization of the juniors of the petitioner. 10.4-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected by respondent No. 2 on the ground that no sanctioned vacant post is available in the department and that the benefit of the circular dated 5.3.2008 could be extended only as a one-time measure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was engaged by the respondents as a daily-wage labourer in the year 1985 and his services were discontinued in the year 1995. He would further contend that the petitioner approached the learned Labour Court, which passed an order of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner, and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service. He would contend that though the petitioner has rendered more than 30-35 years of service with the department, his claim with regard to regularization has not been considered. He would contend that the petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 8345 of 2018 seeking regularization and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.12.2018 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his claim for regularization. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no sanctioned vacant post. He would further submit that if no sanctioned vacant post is available, the respondent authorities ought to have created a supernumerary post as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh and Ors. vs. 3 State of U.P. and Anr., decided in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that it is not in dispute that no sanctioned vacant post is available, therefore, no order for regularization of services of the petitioner could be passed. He would further submit that the petitioner was never appointed against a sanctioned vacant post, no advertisement was issued for his appointment, and he was never subjected to any selection process or interview. Therefore, he has no vested right to claim regularization. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh (supra) had held in paragraph 19 is as under: “19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services 4 Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay- level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and 5 terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.” 7. Having considered the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 30.3.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The authority concerned is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner with regard to regularization in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh (supra), preferably, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant