1 CGHC010070622022 2026:CGHC:36371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1374 of 2022 1 - Keju Ram Verma S/o Late Punauram Verma Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashok S/o Dukhu Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Balmukund Verma S/o Late Bisauha Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dasrath S/o Late Adhin Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Baisakhu S/o Nandlal Verma Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Gulab S/o Late Nazru Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Munnua Ram Verma S/o Somnath Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Amlidih Kala, Post Pipariya, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. NIRMALA RAO 2 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintending Engineer Water Resources Department, Shivnath Circle, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy.A.G. alongwith Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respective offices of the respondents. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from initial date of appointment along with all consequential service benefits. 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4) Cost of the petition.” 3 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petition was initially filed seeking the relief of regularization. During the pendency of the petition, the respondents issued notices of retrenchment to the petitioners. The petitioners immediately amended the petition and challenged the action of retrenchment. 3. The State Government issued a circular dated 5.3.2008 for regularization of employees who had completed 10 years of service prior to the issuance of the said circular. The services of similarly situated employees have already been regularized; however, in an arbitrary manner, the services of the petitioners have not been regularized, although they have been continuously working since 1986. Hence, this petition. 4. The only relief that now survives for consideration is the claim for regularization. 5. Be that as it may, from the factual matrix of the case, as narrated in the writ petition and supported by two orders passed by the Labour Court dated 21.1.1991, it is clearly established that the petitioners have been in the service of the respondents since 1986. The record would also show that the services of the petitioners were discontinued on two occasions in the past. On both occasions, the petitioners promptly challenged the said action before the concerned Labour Court and obtained orders in their favour. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Tukaram v. State of Chhattisgarh, in W.P.(S) No.1703 of 2015, decided on 16.5.2017, would apply to the present case, wherein the Division Bench has held that the period spent in litigation would also be 4 treated as part of continuous employment once an order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court. Thus, for all practical purposes, the petitioners herein would also be treated as being in continuous employment from their initial date of engagement, i.e. 1986. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tukaram (supra), which has subsequently been affirmed by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioners is liable to be considered for regularization in accordance with the circulars issued by the State Government regarding regularization, particularly the circular dated 5.3.2008 and the subsequent circulars. While considering the case of the petitioners, the respondents shall also take into account the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tukaram (supra). Considering the fact that the matter is quite old, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization at the earliest, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi