1 CGHC010015742017 2026:CGHC:37477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2685 of 2017 1 - Uttam Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Late D. S. Chauhan, Aged About 50 Years Working As Timekeeper, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o In Front Of Prakash Sound Service, Katiyapara, Juna Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Amit Yadav S/o Shri Sevaram Yadav, Aged About 37 Years Working As Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Takhatpur, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, R. D. A. Bhavan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 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 and decide the representations in accordance with law and the light of Circular dated 12.12.14 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 petitioners were appointed as Timekeeper and Clerk respectively, under respondent No.3 in the year 2005 on a daily-wage basis. They have continuously worked for more than 20 years. Their joint representation seeking regularization is pending consideration before respondent No.3 and has not been decided yet. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have 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 petitioners 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 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 appointments of the petitioners were made on a temporary basis and not against sanctioned vacant posts; therefore, they have no right to claim regularization. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have 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 petitioners for regularization in the light of the judgments cited 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 Rekha