1 CGHC010130752022 2026:CGHC:37409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2705 of 2022 * - Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Late Ravi Shankar Chaturvedi Aged About 65 Years Retired Revenue Sub Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 R/o Behind Congress Bhawan, Chotapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002 2 - Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPS No. 2852 of 2022 * - Mool Chand Ojha S/o Shri Lakshmi Chand Ojha Aged About 62 Years Retired Assistant Grade II, Municipal Corporation , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Resident Of R/o New Hanuman Nagar, House No. 55/959, Near Madhu Baadi , Boriya Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Urban Administration And Development Department , Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development , Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492002 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation , District Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.08.24 18:02:32 +0530 2 --- Respondents And WPS No. 2869 of 2022 * - Umakant Sharma S/o Late Kamal Narayan Sharma, Aged About 61 Years Revenue Sub Inspector, Zone- 06, Municipal Corporation, Purani Basti P.S., Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) R/o Sunder Nagar, Om Society, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492001 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492002 2 - Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 in WPS No. 2705/2022 For Respondent No. 3 in WPS No. 2852/2022 and WPS No. 2869/2022 : : : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. In these 03 petitions, the petitioners who are retired employees of Municipal Corporation have challenged the order dated 24.11.2021 and further they have claimed annual increments for period they worked as Ad-hoc employees under the Municipal Corporation. The date of appointment as Ad-hoc employees; date of regularization of their services; and date of retirement are reproduced herein below in 3 the Chart:- S.No. Date of Appointment as Ad-hoc employees Date of Regularization of their services Date of Retirement 01. Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi : 16-04-1984 16-08-1993 31-07-2018 02. Mool Chand Ojha : 16-04-1981 18-01-1983 30-06-2021 03. Umakant Sharma : 22-11-1983 05-04-1990 31.12.2021 2. Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that initially the petitioners were appointed under the Municipal Corporation on Ad-hoc basis and they worked with artificial break of one day till date of their regularization. He would submit that specific orders of regularization were issued in their favour and subsequently they were promoted to the next higher post. Mr. Thomas would submit that the petitioners attained age of superannuation and got retired from services. He would further submit that the Municipal Corporation on 17.10.2014 and 31.08.2019 wrote letter to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development to extend benefit of increments from date of their initial appointment till regularization of their services. He would contend that resolution was passed in the meeting of Mayor-in-Council in favour of the petitioners. He would submit that in Original Application No. 1979/1991 similar benefit was extended by the State Administrative Tribunal to one Satish Kumar Mandloi. He would further contend that earlier writ petitions were filed by the petitioners claiming therein annual increments and those writ petitions were disposed of reserving 4 liberty in favour of the petitioners to make representation before the concerned Municipal Corporation. He would submit that the representation(s) made by the petitioners have been rejected and those order(s) are under challenge. He would contend that the orders whereby the representation(s) of the petitioners have been rejected may be quashed and the writ petitions may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Sourabh Sharma leading the argument would submit that initially the petitioners were appointed as Ad-hoc employees and subsequently their services were regularized. Mr. Sharma would submit that in WPS No. 2852/2022, in order of regularization of the petitioner dated 18.01.1983, it was clearly observed that the services rendered prior to date of regularization of services would not be counted for any purposes. He would contend that the petitioners knowing very well conditions enumerated in the order or regularization accepted it and after retirement they have claimed benefit of increments. He would further contend that the claim of the petitioners is hit by principles of delay and laches. He would submit that these writ petitions deserves to be dismissed. 5. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 in WPS No. 2705/2022 would support the contention made by Mr. Sourabh Sharma. 6. Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that there is dispute between the petitioners and Municipal Corporation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 documents. 8. In order of regularization issued in favour of petitioner- Mool Chand Ojha, it is stated that the services rendered prior to date of regularization would not be counted for any purposes, but in other writ petitions in orders of regularization, no such condition existed. 9. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on Ad-hoc basis way back in the year between 1981 to 1983. Subsequently their services were regularized after 03 years. The petitioner accepted the order(s) of regularization without raising any objection. They were granted benefit of increments from the date of regularization and this practice continued till date of retirement. The petitioners have claimed benefit of increments from the date of initial appointment on the basis of the resolution passed by Mayor-in-Council. Though the resolution was passed in favour of the petitioners by Mayor-in-Council, but no specific order was passed either by Commissioner of Municipal Corporation or by State. It is well settled principles of law that resolution cannot be executed. The resolution along with covering memo was referred to the State Government, but no decision was taken. Admittedly, on the basis of resolution alone, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioners with regard to grant of increments from date of initial appointment. Condition No. 4 embodied in order of regularization dated 18.01.1983 (Annexure R-3/1 in WPS No. 2852/2022) does not exist in order(s) of regularization passed in WPS No. 2705/2022 & WPS No. 2869/2022, therefore, the principles of forgo or demurrer cannot be applied, but at the same time the sight cannot be loss to the fact that the petitioners remained in a state of slumber for long 40 years. They have filed these writ petitions in the year 2022 after 6 retirement. They accepted their order(s) of regularization without any objection and first time in the year 2022, they approached the High Court claiming therein benefit of increments from the date of their initial appointment, thus, in the opinion of this Court, the claims of the petitioners suffer from delay and laches too. 10. Having considered the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order(s) passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the representation(s) of the petitioners have been rejected. Accordingly, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti