1 2026:CGHC:15784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3050 of 2026 Hitnarayan Bareth S/o Shri Bhulauram Bareth Aged About 47 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Boirdadar, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Presently Posted As Dialysis Technician In Late Shri Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Hospital, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Health And Family Welfare, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Directorate Of Medical Education Through The Director, North Block, Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan, Second Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Director And Superintendent Late Shri Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Government Medical College Associated Hospital Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Date: 2026.04.09 12:36:53 +0530 2 Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 07/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as a daily-wage employee with respondent No.4 since the year 2014, the representations dated 02.04.2025 and 21.08.2025 submitted by petitioner has not been considered till date, therefore, this writ petition is filed. He submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed orders for regularizing services of daily wager/temporary/contract employees and therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation before the respondent authorities for redress for his grievance as raised in this grounds and in turn, the respondent authorities be directed to take a decision on representation to be submitted by petitioners expeditiously within specified time. 2. Learned counsel for respondents submit that in view of limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner, she has no objection. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 4. Grievance raised by petitioner in this writ petition is that even after completion of more than 10 years of service, the respondents are not regularizing services of petitioner. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC 3 (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Versus Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the 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. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30th January 2026 has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them4 consideration for regularization and have further directed for regularizing the appellants therein, in service. 7. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 also criticized the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices and observed thus: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and 5 outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record5 should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. x x x 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial 6 workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 8. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is working as daily wage employee and as of now, he has completed more than 10 years continuous service; considering the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ petition, at this stage, is disposed of permitting petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievance as raised in this writ petition. If such a representation is submitted by petitioner the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioner has completed of 7 more than 10 years as also the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily wage/temporary employees, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of representation. 9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Sexena