1 CGHC010295562020 2026:CGHC:39209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 155 of 2021 * - Dilip Kumar Hattewar S/o Late Chaturbhuj Hattewar Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Gayatri Colony, Kaurin Bhata, Ward No. 45, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Housing And Urban Poverty Alleviation Room No. 215-B, Nirman Road, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary/upper, Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Director of Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Municipal Corporation District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer State Urban Development Agency, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Call Me Services C-101/5, Tagore Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 to 4 For Respondent No. 5 : : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.09.09 14:58:11 +0530 2 “10.A A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. 10.B A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the order dated 18/10/2019 (Annexure P-1) as against the law and guide line. The respondents to regularise the petitioner or to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order dated 05.10.2018 i.e. ANNEXURE P-1. 10.C A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the letter dated 31/07/2019 (Annexure P-2) as against the law and guide line issued by the respondent No. 1 and respondent have no authority to provide the wages to the petitioner through the placement agency. 10.D A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent No. 2 to 6 the respondents to regularize the petitioner. 10.E Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.F Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 2. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis on 08.03.1995. He would submit that after completion of project, he was appointed on daily wage against sanctioned post on 22.01.2004 and he is still working on the said post. He would contend that the claim of the petitioner for regularization of services has been rejected on the ground that initially the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. He would submit that as daily wage employee, the petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service, therefore, the respondent authorities should have considered the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC 3 OnLine SC 1735. He would pray to quash the order Annexure P/1 dated 18.10.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract for a particular project and after completion of work of the project, his services were terminated. They would contend that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee on 22.01.2004, but he was never engaged against any sanctioned and vacant post, therefore, he has no right to claim regularization. They would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Having considered the fact that the representation of the petitioner with regard to regularization has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that initially the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and subsequently he was appointed on daily wage with effect from 22.01.2004. 6. As the petitioner was appointed on daily wage on 22.01.2004 and he has completed more than 20 years of service, the respondent authorities should have decided the claim of the petitioner in light of the Circular dated 05.03.2008. While deciding the claim of an employee with regard to regularization, the authority concerned has to consider length of service, perennial nature of the work, integrity, honesty, sincerity etc. In the present case, on sole ground that the petitioner initially appointed as contract basis, his representation has been 4 rejected, therefore, the order Annexure P-1 dated 18.10.2019 is hereby quashed. 7. The respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the observations made herein-above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh (supra). The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti