1 / 7 2026:CGHC:14978 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2930 of 2026 1 - Narad Ram Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Kohlatola, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 2 - Harishchandra Sahu S/o Inaram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Kohlatola, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 3 - Khelan Yadav S/o Shobhit Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Kohlatola, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - Ram Gopal Sahu S/o Dashru Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Bhursatola, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 5 - Mayaram Sahu S/o Tulsi Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Jhujhara, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 6 - Gaindram Verma S/o Bisauha Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Ghoghre, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.04 12:05:21 +0530 2 / 7 7 - Deenu Ram Sahu S/o Ghasiya Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Khaibana, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 8 - Mulchand Kurre S/o Bhagirathi Kurre Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Dokrabhatha, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 9 - Mansukha S/o Jhagru Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Mandla, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resource Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Godavri Kachhar, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer Water Resource Department, Shivnath Division Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, Chhuikhadan Division, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 3 / 7 01/04/2026. 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of Labour (or any equivalent permanent post) in the Water Resources Department, Chhuikhadan Division with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary in the regular pay scale, seniority, notional increments, promotions and other service benefits from the date they became eligible/completed the requisite period of service; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioners. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially engaged in the respondent -Department as Labourers on daily wage basis. As of now petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service on daily wage basis. He contended that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioners are entitled for consideration for regularization of their service on the post, on which, they are working for more than 10 years. He, however, submits that at this stage petitioners may be permitted to submit fresh representation before the appropriate authority and the said authority be directed to take decision on the representation expeditiously thereafter. 4 / 7 4. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and only seeking permission to submit representation to be considered by authorities, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. Claim of the petitioners is that petitioners were engaged in service as daily wage employee and since then they are continuously working for more than 10 years. 7. In case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wage 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. 8. 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 5 / 7 nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization and have further directed for regularizing the appellants therein, in service. 9. 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 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 outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why 6 / 7 they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record 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 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.” 7 / 7 10. In the aforementioned facts of case, more particularly the period of engagement of petitioners on daily wage basis and recent decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of regularization as discussed in preceding paragraphs, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit a comprehensive fresh representation before respondent authorities seeking regularization and if such representation is submitted, concerned authorities shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners sympathetically in an objective manner, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) Jaggo (supra), Bhola Nath (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra). Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen