1 2026:CGHC:15282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 495 of 2022 * - Mayaram Bharti S/o Late Arjun Bharti Aged About 53 Years R/o Maharani Ward No. 14, Behind 36 Quarter, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division, Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.I That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s) by holding that, the petitioner is entitled for regularization as per the guideline issued by the State Government. 10.II That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority for taking the necessary step for regularization of the services of the petitioner in the office of the respondent No. 3 and further direct the respondent Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.06 11:15:12 +0530 2 authority to given all the consequential service benefit to the petitioner from his due date. 10.III Any other relief/relief’s, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was engaged with respondent No.3 on 15.01.1993 as daily wage employee. He would submit that the State Government issued a Circular on 05.03.2008 framing guidelines for regularization of services of daily wages employees. He would contend that the petitioner made various representations before respondent No. 3 on 12.06.2009; 25.05.2011; 09.02.2012; 04.08.2012; 07.09.2012 and 04.03.2014 claiming therein regularization, but till date those representations have not been considered. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner for regularization was forwarded by the office of the Commissioner (Revenue), Jagdalpur Division to respondent No. 3. He would submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representations expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the petitioner was a part-time employee working under respondent No. 3. He would submit that as the petitioner was not a daily rated employee, therefore, he has no right to claim for regularization pursuant to Circular dated 05.03.2008. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. Taking into consideration the submission advanced by Mr. Neeraj Choubey, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3 and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order as per Circular dated 05.03.2008. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti