1 CGHC010287822026 2026:CGHC:38287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5930 of 2026 1. Mahendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shatrudhan Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 24, Ward No. 02, Somni Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 2. Manohar Lal Sahu S/o Rup Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 415(2), Gali No. 02, Ward No. 04, Shantinagar, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 3. Amarjeet Dewangan S/o Tarachand Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 50, Nal Ghar Singdai, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 4. Gopaldas Manikpuri S/o Pyaru Das Manikpuri Aged About 57 Years R/o Kenwat Para, Rajput Gali, Ward No. 03, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 5. Anil Kumar S/o Sudan Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 32, Kaldabri, Dumardihkhurd, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 6. Ankit Hariharno S/o Ashok Hariharno Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 29/85, Ward No. 33, Raghuveer Marg Near Brahman Para, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 7. Vijay Markande S/o Bisahat Das Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 81, Ward No. 07, Bagtarai, P.O.- Dilapahari, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 8. Shivshankar Thakur S/o Late Ramji Thakur Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 286, Ward No. 04, Shantinagar, Chikhali, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 9. Tikeshwar Netam S/o Kamlu Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 545, Ward No. 39, Kourinbhatha, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. 10. Shiv Prasad Yadav S/o Shobha Ram Yadav Aged About 61 Years R/o Bhathagaon, Bhedikala Post, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, The Department Of Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 2. Directorate Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Capital SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.31 17:13:03 +0530 2 Complex, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 3. Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Diwesh Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date they completed ten years of continuous service as daily wage employees, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority, and other service benefits; 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Diwesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were engaged with the respondent No. 3 as daily wage employees and thereafter they were appointed as contractual employees. He would contend that they have completed more than 10 – 20 years of service, but their claim with regard to regularization has not been considered. He would submit that the respondents should have considered the claim of the petitioners for regularization. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. In the present case, the petitioners have been continuously working with the department for more than 10-20 years and their claim for regularization has 3 not been considered. The authority concerned has to consider nature of employment, length of service, past record of employee, sanctioned vacancy etc. It is well settled principle of law that prolonged temporary engagement of daily wagers amounts exploitation and defeats constitutional mandate. 6. The aspect of regularization has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Jaggo Versus Union of India1 in which it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under : “26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This or misapplied to judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and deny "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases appointments are not illegal, but merely lack where their adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for 1. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032 4 the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 7. Having considered the facts discussed-above and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of petitioners keeping in mind the observations made herein-above. It is expected that entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 2 within period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant