1 CGHC010256512022 2026:CGHC:33225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5449 of 2022 1 - Umesh Samudre S/o Shri Rajaram Samudre Aged About 43 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Bapunagar, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sikram Khursail S/o Shri Ajay Khursail Aged About 40 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Bapunagar, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ajendra Khursail S/o Shri Vijay Mohan Lal Aged About 40 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Bapunagar, Torwa, Police Station Torwa, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner’s cases. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.08.01 13:42:55 +0530 2 10.2 That the Hon’ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to send the name of the petitioners along with other employees for regularizing of their service within stipulated period. 10.3 That the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to grant minimum pay scale to the petitioners as the provision of Minimum Wages Act 1948, until they regularized in the department. 10.4 Any other order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees under the respondent No. 3 in the year 1997. He would contend that the petitioners approached the respondent No. 3 claiming therein regularization pursuant to Circular dated 05.03.2008 after completion of 10 years of service, but till date no decision has been taken. He would contend that the issue involved in the present petition has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 and in the matter of Jaggo Vs. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 : AIR 2025 SC 296. He would contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent No. 3 to consider the claims of the petitioners with regard to regularization in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred cases. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 would oppose. He would submit that as a matter of right the petitioners cannot claim regularization. He would submit 3 that if the representation(s) made by the petitioners are pending, appropriate decision will be taken by the respondent-authority in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that there is dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. As pleaded that the petitioners were engaged under the respondent No. 3 in the year 1997 and till date their claims with regard to regularization have not been considered according to Circular dated 05.03.2008, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make detailed representation(s) before the respondent No. 3 within a period of 30 days and in turn, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider and take appropriate decision on representation(s) so made by the petitioners in the light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) and Jaggo (supra). The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent No. 3 expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) and observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti