1 2026:CGHC:4547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2408 of 2023 1 - Santosh Thakur S/o Shriram Rajput Aged About 63 Years R/o Rest House Road, Deepupar District Panchayat Gaurela (C.G.) District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi 2 - Mohammad Izhaar Khan S/o Mohammed Ramadan Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Deepupar, District Panchayat Gaurela (C.G.) District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi 3 - Parshram Baghel S/o Shri Khalha Bhaghel Aged About 50 Years R/o Tikarkala, District Panchayat Gourella (C.G.) District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Medical Officer Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent No1/State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.30 18:56:31 +0530 2 sanction the Arrears Amount in favour of the petitioners from year 2008-2015. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may grant any other writ/ writs, order/orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 have been continuously working as Class IV employees on the post of Pump Attendant with the Nagar Panchayat, Gaurela, since 01.01.1992, 05.09.1993 and 05.03.1995 respectively, and their names duly find place in the Weekly Muster Roll Labourers’ gradation list at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 4. It is submitted that the petitioners have discharged their duties with utmost sincerity and without any adverse record. He further submits that the State Government, vide memo dated 05.03.2008, provided for regularization of daily wage employees appointed prior to 31.12.1998, subject to availability of approved and vacant posts, with a further mandate that requisite posts could be created to meet the requirement. In view of the said policy, the petitioners, being appointed much prior thereto, became eligible for regularization in the year 2008 itself. 3. It is contended that despite such eligibility, the respondents arbitrarily withheld the regularization of the petitioners without any justifiable reason. Eventually, pursuant to orders dated 07.07.2015 3 and 12.09.2017, the petitioners were regularized on the post of Pump Attendant after completion of the probation period, thereby acknowledging their entitlement. The delayed regularization from 2008 to 2015 has resulted in denial of legitimate salary benefits and pay-scale increments to the petitioners. It is further contended that the action of the respondents in withholding regularization and consequential benefits is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it directly affects the livelihood of the petitioners. Having extracted work from the petitioners for decades on the same post, the respondents cannot deny arrears and consequential benefits for the period 2008 to 2015. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioners be granted all consequential monetary benefits, including arrears of salary and pay-scale, from the date they became entitled to regularization in the year 2008. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage/weekly muster roll employees and had no vested or indefeasible right to claim regularization from any particular date. It is submitted that regularization can only be granted in accordance with the applicable policy, subject to availability of sanctioned and vacant posts, fulfillment of eligibility conditions, and approval by the competent authority. He further submits that the State Government policy dated 05.03.2008 clearly stipulates that 4 regularization is permissible only against approved and vacant posts and does not create any automatic right in favour of the petitioners. The creation of posts and grant of regularization is a matter of administrative discretion and financial feasibility, and therefore, mere completion of length of service does not entitle the petitioners to claim regularization retrospectively. 5. It is submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioners were duly considered for regularization and were regularized in the year 2015 in accordance with law, after following the due procedure and after the decision taken by the competent authority. There is no illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide in the action of the respondents. He further submits that the petitioners cannot claim arrears of salary or consequential monetary benefits for the period prior to their actual regularization, as they were not holding sanctioned posts during that period. Grant of retrospective monetary benefits would impose an undue financial burden on the local body and is not contemplated under the policy or the statutory provisions. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 reiterates the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and submits that the petitioners were engaged as daily-wage Pump Attendants in the office of the Nagar Panchayat Gourella during the years 1992, 1993, and 1995, as reflected in the weekly muster roll of labourers. 5 However, at the relevant time, regularization of their services was contingent upon the availability of sanctioned posts. As per the Government Set-Up dated 05.06.2006 issued by the State Government, Department of Urban Administration & Development, under Sections 87, 88, and 94 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (Annexure R-2/1), there were only three sanctioned posts of Pump Attendants in the Nagar Panchayat Gourella, all of which were already filled by other employees. Therefore, the petitioners could not have been regularized in the year 2008, despite the circular dated 05.03.2008 providing for the regularization of daily-wage employees appointed prior to 31.12.1998, as there were no vacant sanctioned posts available at that point of time. Subsequently, vide order dated 16.06.2015, the State Government sanctioned four additional non-sanctioned posts of Pump Attendants. Thereafter, the Answering Respondent, after due consideration of the proposal and obtaining the necessary approvals from the President-In-Council, Nagar Panchayat Gourella, regularized the services of the petitioners on 07.07.2015. 7. It is submitted that the regularization process followed all applicable rules and procedures. The petitioners’ claim for backdating regularization to the year 2008 is without basis, as it was procedurally and legally impossible to regularize their services before the creation of sanctioned posts. At all times, the Answering 6 Respondent acted in accordance with government instructions and with the approvals of the competent authority. 8. In view of the above, it is submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out any ground for interference, and no case is made out for granting the relief sought in the instant writ petition under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and prays that the petition may be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the records and documents annexed with the writ petition, including the weekly muster rolls, Government circulars, set-up orders, and the orders relating to the regularization of the petitioners. The submissions of the parties, as well as the material on record, have been considered in their entirety in order to arrive at a reasoned conclusion in the matter. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially engaged as daily wage/weekly muster roll employees and continued to work in that capacity for several years. Mere long continuation in service on daily wage or muster roll basis does not, by itself, confer any vested or indefeasible right upon an employee to claim regularization or consequential monetary benefits from a retrospective date. Regularization is not a matter of right but is governed strictly by the policy of the State and subject to availability of sanctioned and vacant posts as well as approval by the competent authority. 7 11. The policy dated 05.03.2008 relied upon by the petitioners clearly stipulates that regularization is permissible only against approved and vacant posts and does not provide for automatic or retrospective regularization. The said policy also leaves the issue of creation of posts to the administrative discretion of the department, depending upon functional requirement and financial feasibility. Therefore, merely because the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility conditions, no enforceable right accrued in their favour to claim regularization with effect from the year 2008 or to claim arrears of salary for the period prior to their actual regularization. 12. From the record, it is evident that the petitioners were duly considered and thereafter regularized in the year 2015 in accordance with law, pursuant to a conscious decision taken by the competent authority. Once the regularization itself has been granted strictly in terms of the applicable policy and procedure, this Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality or mala fide on the part of the respondents in not granting retrospective regularization or monetary benefits for the anterior period. 13. The contention of the petitioners that denial of arrears from 2008 to 2015 violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. The petitioners were not holding sanctioned posts during the said period and were working as daily wage/weekly muster roll employees. In absence of holding a sanctioned post, no claim for regular pay scale or arrears can be sustained in law. 8 Grant of retrospective monetary benefits in such circumstances would not only be contrary to the policy but would also place an unwarranted financial burden upon the local body. 14. It is trite law that if there is no vacant sanctioned post available, an employee cannot claim regularization merely on the basis of long service or fulfillment of eligibility criteria. The existence of a sanctioned and vacant post is a precondition for regularization, and in its absence, no legal or equitable right to regularization or retrospective benefits arises. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Courts to ensure that regularization remains linked to administrative necessity and sanctioned strength, rather than being treated as an automatic entitlement. 15. In view of the settled legal position that regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that retrospective monetary benefits are impermissible in absence of specific statutory or policy provision, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The reliefs sought by the petitioners are beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh