1 CGHC010042722021 2026:CGHC:35728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1902 of 2021 1 - Suresh Ku. Ahirwar S/o Shri Dunniram Ahirwar Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Gayatri Nagar, Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development , Chhattisgarh Rajya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Nagari Prashashan Naya Raipur , Raipur. 3 - Office Of Nagar Panchayat Of Lormi Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aarti Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(a) Allow the petition by issuing the writ of the NIRMALA RAO 2 Mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to function under Respondent no.3; also (b) Direct the respondents to make the payment from the year 2016 onwards alongwith other service benefits including promotion etc from the date of his removal to which the petitioner is legally entitled; (c) Direct the respondents to pay interest @ 15% on the amounts of salary which the petitioner was legally entitled; (d) Any other relief/direction as may be deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed under respondent No.3 to the post of Pump Operator with effect from 1.1.1998 on a muster-roll basis. He would submit that the services of the petitioner were subsequently regularized and that this fact is evident from the observations made in W.P. No.1140 of 2001, decided on 4.3.2013. It is contended that the services of the petitioner were discontinued by respondent No.3 in the year 2016 without holding any enquiry. Therefore, a direction may be issued to respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner in service along with all consequential benefits. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She would contend that the petitioner was engaged as a daily-rated employee under respondent No.3 in the year 1998, but his services were subsequently discontinued. She would further submit that the services of the petitioner were never regularized in the department of respondent No.3 and that the petitioner has not placed any document on record to substantiate this claim. She would submit that, in the 3 absence of any supporting documents, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. W.P. No.1140 of 2001 was filed by seven petitioners, including the petitioner herein, seeking regularization of their services. The writ petition was disposed of in light of the reply filed by the Nagar Panchayat, Lormi, wherein it was stated that the services of the petitioners had been regularized vide order dated 8.10.2008. This Court called for the record of W.P. No.1140 of 2001. 7. A perusal of Annexure-R-3/1 filed by respondent No.3/Nagar Panchayat reveals that no order of regularization was ever issued in favour of the petitioner. A list of regular employees formed part of Annexure-R-3/1, but the name of the petitioner does not appear therein. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 1.7.2008 appears to be incorrect. Since the petitioner has failed to place on record any document regarding his appointment or the regularization of his services, the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits cannot be granted. 8. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi