1 CGHC010399872022 2026:CGHC:33505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9155 of 2022 * - Savitri Soni D/o Shri G.R. Soni Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As Training Officer, Trade Stenographer (Hindi), Government Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.), Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh, Permanent Resident Of Nandini Nagar, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Skill Development Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Divisional Office Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyoday Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 03.08.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.08.03 18:13:51 +0530 2 issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to regularize the petitioner in the post of trainer (Stenographer (Hindi) Trade) and further direct to grant consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. 2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioner was appointed as Guest Faculty / Trainer in Stenographer (Hindi) under the respondent-department on 31.12.2007. The petitioner is still working on the same post. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities are not considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that she has been appointed after 31.12.1997, therefore, circular dated 5.3.2008 would not attract on her. He further submits that as petitioner has been working with the department for more than 20 years, respondent authorities should have considered the claim of petitioner with regard to regularization. He prays to allow this writ petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submits that petitioner was appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997 therefore they would not come within the purview of circular dated 5.3.2008. The petitioner has no right to claim regularization. He also submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 material available on record. 6) In the present case, petitioner has been continuously working with the department for more than 19 years and her claim for regularization has been rejected solely on the ground that she was appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997. In my considered view, it is not necessary for an establishment or a State instrumentality to always apply circular dated 5.3.2008 while dealing with the cases of regularization. The authority concerned has to consider nature of employment, length of service, past record of employee, sanctioned vacancy etc. It is well settled principle of law that prolonged temporary engagement of daily wagers amounts exploitation and defeats constitutional mandate. 7) The aspect of regularization has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaggo Versus Union of India1 in which it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under : 26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This or misapplied to judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and deny "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases appointments are not 1 . 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032 4 illegal, but merely lack where their adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 8) Recently, in Shripal Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that Uma Devi judgment cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitation through long term “ad-hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. Relevant paragraph 14 reads as under :- 14.The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between 2. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 5 appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 9) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the claim of petitioner keeping in mind the observations made herein-above. It is expected that entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 2 within period of 150 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10) In result, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE vatti