1 CGHC010099922022 2026:CGHC:34441 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2093 of 2022 Bhanu Pratap Yadav S/o Late Shri Tijauram Yadav Aged About 40 Years Working As Pump Operator In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Kududand Near Pani Tanki, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2- The Joint Director, Department of Urban Administration And Development, R.D.A. Bhavasn, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3- The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in accordance with law as the similarly some employees has been regularized on 10.10.2019 within stipulated period. 10.3. Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4. That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners. ” 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Pump Operator under Respondent No. 3 in the year 2002 on a daily-wage basis. He has continuously worked for more than 20 years. His representation seeking regularization was recommended by the Collector but was ultimately rejected vide order dated 23.09.2020 on the ground that his appointment was temporary and for six months in a calendar year, against which, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has rendered more than 20 years of service and similarly situated employees have already been regularized. He would further submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Jaggo v. Union of India, reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 and 3 Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & ors, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 129 & Dharam Singh & ors. v. State of UP & Anr (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, dt. 19.08.2025). 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner's appointment was made on temporary basis, and not against a sanctioned vacant post; therefore, he has no right to claim regularization. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked continuously for more than 20 years. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo (supra), and Bhola Nath (supra), has held that long and uninterrupted service cannot be ignored merely because the initial appointment was described as temporary, part-time, or contractual. It has also been reiterated that Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 distinguishes between illegal and irregular appointments, and cases of long-serving employees deserve consideration in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the judgments cited 4 hereinabove within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim