1 CGHC010139432022 2026:CGHC:38302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3126 of 2022 1 - Chamar Singh Pradhan S/o Late Sukuram Pradhan, Aged About 54 Years Caste Halba (Adivasi), Presently Working As Peon On Daily Wages Basis In The Women Industrial Training Institute, Narayanpur, R/o Khumarpara, Police Line Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Technical Education Janshakti Niyojan Vigyan Bhawan, Proudogiki Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, District Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Bastar District Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - The Joint Director, Industrial Training Institute, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Director, Employment And Training Directorate, Bairan Bazar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institue, Pakhanjur, District Kanker, North Baster (Chhattisgarh), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. UNS Deo, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 31.8.2026 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the Minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee dated 02- 03/09/2013, whereby his claim for regularization has been rejected on the ground that there was a break in his service. 3) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon on daily-wage basis by respondent No.8/Superintendent, Women Industrial Training Institute, Pakhanjur, District Kanker, North Bastar vide order dated 16.03.1992. The petitioner preferred WPS No.2813 of 2010, claiming regularization, and said petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2010, directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. However, as no decision was taken on the representation, the petitioner preferred WPS No.1952 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2013, directing the respondents to decide the claim of the 3 petitioner in accordance with the Government Policy dated 05.03.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent authorities, but when no decision was communicated to him, he submitted an application under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the decision, if any, taken by the authorities on his representation. In response to the RTI application, the department supplied a copy of the proceedings of the meeting dated 02/03.09.2013, which revealed that the departmental committee had not recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization and had rejected his claim on the ground that there was a break in service of more than one month in a year. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had completed more than 15 years of service on the date of consideration and nature of his engagement is inherently perennial. He further submits that claim of petitioner for regularization has been rejected solely on the ground of break in service for period of more than one month in a year but the authority concerned failed to describe the break period. He prays for quashing of the order dated 22.09.2018 and for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner. 5) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that claim of 4 petitioner for regularization was considered according to the Policy dated 5.3.2008 and there was break in service therefore petitioner’s claim was rightly rejected by the respondent authorities. He further submits that this petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) It appears that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Peon under respondent No. 8 in the year 1992 and on the date of consideration, petitioner had completed more than 15 years of service. A careful perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the authority concerned has rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground of break in service. However, there is no description of the break period in the Minutes of the meeting of Scrutiny Committee dated 02.09.2013 & 03.09.2013 Annexure P/1. 8) Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Chand and Others Versus State of Punjab and Another1 considered the issue of break in service ranging from 5 to 187 days and took note of the fact that large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of State in view of policy instructions in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service. 1. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 394 5 It was held that short, periodic interruptions in engagement are artificial in nature when an employee is consistently re-engaged to perform the same duties and such breaks do not signal a genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment. Relevant paragraphs 18 to 20 read as under :- 18.The core question that falls for consideration is whether the Appellants are covered under the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003, 15.12.2006 and 18.03.2011 issued by the State of Punjab for regularization of ad hoc employees. It is not disputed that the Appellants were appointed before 13.06.1996. The Respondents have sought to exclude the Appellants solely on the ground that theirservice tenures contained breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days. Therefore, it has been argued that their engagements were not continuous, making them ineligible under the policy. Furthermore, it has been argued that they are also ineligible under the policy dated 18.03.2011 as the Appellants were no longer in service when it came into force. 19. We are unable to agree with this reasoning as it has come on record that a large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and15.12.2006 in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service as in the case of the present Appellants. The details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who were given the benefit of the policies have been brought forward who had breaks ranging from a period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that in the case of the Appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for parity is made out as the Appellants have service record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187 days. The State cannot application of the policy to the Appellants, who selectively deny the are 6 identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification. 20. Moreover, the breaks in service relied upon by the Respondents to deny regularization are, on a closer examination, artificial in nature. The Appellants were consistently re-engaged, save for short breaks, and continued to discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the appointing authorities on the same posts. The breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the long service of the Appellants cannot be disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling the initial employment as ad hoc. 9) In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the principles articulated in Prem Chand (supra) apply with full force to the present case. Accordingly, the order dated 02-03/09/2013 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. 10) In result, the instant writ petition is allowed. 11) It is directed that the Director, Directorate Employment And Training i.e. respondent No. 6 shall consider the claim of petitioner with regard to regularization of his services in light of the observations made herein-above. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed by the authority concerned within period of 150 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha