1 / 6 2026:CGHC:14425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 495 of 2026 Dr. Shankar Choudhary S/o Late Bangali Choudhary Aged About 63 Years Posted As A Medical Officer At Community Health Centre Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indirawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical Officer, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Center Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.03.30 14:12:15 +0530 2 / 6 25/03/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the State for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointed i.e 07.07.1998 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant consequential benefit from 07.07.1998. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Rural Medical Officer on 07.07.1998 on contract basis. Since, his initial engagement, he is continuously working on contract basis on the same post without any break in service. As of now petitioner has completed more than 27 years of service on contract basis. He contended that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner is entitled for consideration for regularization of his service on the post, on which, he is working for more than 27 years. He, however, submits that at this stage petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation before the appropriate 3 / 6 authority and the said authority be directed to take decision on the representation expeditiously thereafter. 4. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner is 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 petitioner is that petitioner was engaged in service on the post of Rural Medical Officer on contract basis on 07.07.1998 and since then he is continuously working for more than two decades. Now he is about to attain his age of superannuation. 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 4 / 6 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 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. 5 / 6 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 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 6 / 6 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.” 10. In the aforementioned facts of case, more particularly the period of engagement of petitioner on contract 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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