1 2026:CGHC:15759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2589 of 2022  Shanker Chetiyar S/o Late Shri Rajan Chetiyar Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Bajrang Nagar, Raipur , Police Station Azad Chowk, Amapara , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development , Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Jaya Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Anway Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 7.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22/11/2019 (ANNEXURE - P/1) passed by respondent authority. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further grant full back-wages with 12% interest to the petitioner. 10.3 any other relief 2 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who was working as Driver on daily wage basis under respondent department was terminated from service vide order dated 27.8.2013 on the ground that State Government had issued instructions to terminate all daily wagers, who were appointed after 1997. He further submits that petitioner preferred WPS/2993/2014 and said order was quashed and direction was issued to bring the petitioner to the same status which he was enjoying just prior to the passing of order dated 27.8.2013. He contends that petitioner preferred WPS/4151/2019 claiming therein regularization on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008 and that petition was disposed directing respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of petitioner within four months. He further contends that respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure P/1), discontinued the services of petitioner without assigning sufficient reasons. He argues that the authority concerned has terminated the services of petitioner only to deprive the benefit of regularization. He prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee and he should have approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner or concerned Labour Court for redressal of this grievance instead of filing this petition. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Admittedly, petitioner was a daily rated employee and his services were terminated by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.11.2019. It is stated in the order impugned that services of petitioner are no longer required, therefore his services have been terminated. Earlier, petitions were filed by petitioner claiming therein regularization and same were disposed directing respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner. 6) However, petitioner failed to establish that he was appointed against any sanctioned and vacant post under respondent- department and appointment order, if any issued in favor of him has also not been placed on record, therefore in my opinion, this petition in its present form is not maintainable. 7) Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.08 14:27:28 +0530