1 2026:CGHC:4295-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 66 of 2026 1 - Rajendra Singh Rajput S/o Late M. S. Rajput Aged About 55 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 1, Khaira- garh Road, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay Singh Bais S/o Shri Amardhan Singh Aged About 53 Years Oc- cupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Forest Colony, Dongar- garh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 3 - Rai Singh Sinha S/o Shri Palturam Sinha Aged About 55 Years Oc- cupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Village Rahmankapa, Post Munmuna, Tahsil Pandaria, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Yogendra Sharma S/o Shri Sonu Sharma Aged About 62 Years Oc- cupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Village Bodela, Tahsil Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Vikram Nishad S/o Shri Jangalu Nishad Aged About 57 Years Occu- pation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Forest Division Office, Kawarda, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Chandra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Samaru Ram Yadav Aged About 53 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Mahamaya Chowk, Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest, Ma- hanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Conservator of Forest Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.28 10:27:33 +0530 2 3 - Conservator of Forest Circle Durg, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Syed Ashique Ali S/o Shri Riyazat Ali Aged About 46 Years Occupa- tion Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 10 Shakti Nagar, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Santosh Sharma S/o Shri Laxman Prasad Sharma Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Peon, Kawardha, Forest Division, R/o Village Main- pur, Post Pandariya, District Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Chatur Singh Nishad S/o Shri Vishram Nishad Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon, Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 13, Am- bagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Anil Kumar Namdev S/o Shri Sumiran Namdev Aged About 40 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 19, Civil Lines, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 9 - Mohammad Shadiq Qureshi S/o Shri M. S. Qureshi Aged About 40 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Shanti Na- gar, Ward No. 11, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 10 - Mukesh Singh Rajput S/o Late M. S. Rajput Aged About 43 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 1, Khaira- garh Road, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 11 - Koushal Singh Rajput S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Rajput Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Post Gendatola, Tahsil Chhuria, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 12 - Yashwant Kumar Verma S/o Shri Deendayal Verma Aged About 48 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 13, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 13 - Ramesh Kumar Namdev S/o Shri Kanhaiyyalal Namdev Aged About 42 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Civil Lines, Ward No. 19, Khairgarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 14 - Toprao Bamanthede S/o Shri Bhiggar Bamanthede Aged About 48 Years Occupation Peon, Rajnandgaon Forest Division, R/o Village 3 Ghortalav, Post Sadakchirchari, Tahsil Churia, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 15 - Manohar Soni S/o Shri Chhedilal Soni Aged About 44 Years Occu- pation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Karpatri Park, Kawardha, District Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 16 - Santosh Singh Rajput S/o Shri Umendra Singh Rajput Aged About 45 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Shikshak Nagar, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 17 - Nityaranjan Sharma S/o Shri Sonu Lal Sharma Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Khairagarh Forest Division, R/o Ward No. 15, Forest Colony, Gandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 18 - Bhulau Ram Yadav S/o Shri Parma Yadav Aged About 47 Years Occupation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Kabir Para, Kawardha, District Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 19 - Babulal Yadav S/o Shri Kangalu Yadav Aged About 36 Years Occu- pation Peon, Kawardha Forest Division, R/o Forest Division Office, Kawardha, District Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.01.2026 1 Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. 4 2 By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “I. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case. II. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5678/2016 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble High Court. III. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the Writ Petition (S) No. 5678/2016 filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Single Bench and also direct the respondents to regularize the services of appellants against Class-IV posts, on parity grounds. IV. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the appeal may be given.” 3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5678/2016 (Syed Ashique Ali and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners has been dismissed. 4 The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the writ petitioners were working under the respondents as daily rated employees prior to March, 2008. A Circular dated 05.03.2008 was issued by the State Government for consideration 5 of cases of daily rated employees for regularization. Pursuant thereto, the services of the writ petitioners were considered and they were regularized against sanctioned and vacant Class-IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008. 5 Thereafter, the Conservator of Forest, Forest Circle, Durg, by letter dated 07.10.2008, instructed the Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh Forest Division, to consider the cases of daily rated employees for regularization pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, on the basis of their educational qualifications. On the same date, another office memorandum was issued by the Conservator of Forest, Circle Durg, directing the Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh, to consider the names of daily rated employees appointed prior to 1988 against sanctioned and vacant Class-III posts of Forest Guards. 6 Consequently, daily rated employees possessing the requisite qualifications were appointed to the post of Forest Guard vide orders dated 07.10.2010, 08.10.2010, 28.10.2010, 11.11.2010 and 10.01.2011. Similarly, Surguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur, also appointed daily rated employees against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards vide order dated 19.09.2008. 7 Subsequently, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, by letter dated 30.09.2013 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, 6 sought a list of Wireless Operators/Peons/Chowkidars for conversion of their status against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards; however, no decision was taken thereon. 8 Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners along with other similarly situated employees filed WPS No. 7526/2011 and WPS No. 7777/2011 seeking regularization against sanctioned and vacant Class-III posts in terms of Clause-2 of the Circular dated 05.03.2008. Both the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2016 granting liberty to the writ petitioners to submit representation(s) before the Secretary, Department of Forest, with a direction to decide the same within a period of six months. 9 Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1, vide order dated 19.07.2016, rejected the representation(s) made by the writ petitioners on the ground that under Clause 2(vii) of the Circular dated 05.03.2008, regularization could be considered against sanctioned and vacant posts only as a one-time measure, and further observing that there was no rule or instruction providing for conversion of posts from Class-IV to Class-III. 10 The said order has been challenged by the writ petitioners by filing WPS No.5678/2016 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2025. 11 Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 29.10.2025, the appellants have filed the instant writ appeal. 7 12 Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the impugned order Annexure A/1 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside/quashed. He further submits that the Bench has erred in holding that the appellants/writ petitioners have already been regularized on Class-IV posts by order dated 29.08.2005, while they are claiming regularization against Class-III posts, which is not permissible according to the Circular dated 05.03.2008. At the time of regularization of services of the appellants/writ petitioners, their qualifications entitled them to consideration for Class-III posts, but the respondents regularized them only against Class-IV posts, despite having requisite qualifications. 13 Learned counsel further submits that the Circular dated 05.03.2008 specifically directed the State Government authorities to regularize daily wagers/adhoc employees against Class-IV and Class-III posts based on the qualifications held by such employees. One employee, namely Valmiki Mishra, was regularized on the same day on the post of Forest Guard, which is a Class-III post. He further submits that in Khairagarh Forest Division and Kawardha Forest Division, daily wagers were regularized against Class-III posts on the basis of their qualifications. However, in the case of the appellants/writ petitioners, such regularization has been denied, amounting to discrimination and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8 14 It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in Surguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur, in compliance with the Circular dated 05.03.2008, other daily wagers were considered for regularization to the posts of Forest Guard, Wireless Operator, Clerk, and Peon vide order dated 19.09.2008 issued by the Conservator of Forest, Circle Surguja. He further submits that on 21.01.2008, Laxman Prasad Sharma was regularized against a Class-III post; on 27.06.2008, Madanlal Sahu and Diwaker Chokar were regularized against Class-III posts; and on 08.10.2008, Michal Anthony and Vinod Kumar Mishra were regularized against Class-III posts. It is lastly contended that one Munikaran Mishra was initially regularized against the Class-IV post of Peon. Munikaran Mishra filed W.P.(S) No. 2095/2013, which, vide order dated 03.08.2023, disposed of the writ petition. Pursuant thereto, Munikaran Mishra was regularized against a Class-III post of Forest Guard vide order dated 04.10.2023. 15 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the appellants/writ petitioners have already been regularized against Class-IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008, and their claim for regularization against Class-III posts is not permissible under the Circular dated 05.03.2008. He further submits that the Circular dated 05.03.2008 provided for regularization of daily wagers/adhoc employees against 9 sanctioned and vacant posts as a one-time measure, and there is no provision or rule for conversion of Class-IV posts to Class-III posts. 16 Learned State counsel submits that the respondents have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Circular and that the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners for regularization against Class-III posts cannot be entertained as it would amount to extending the benefit beyond what was provided under the Circular. It is submitted that appointments of other employees on Class-III posts, as relied upon by the appellants/writ petitioners, were made based on specific circumstances, including educational qualifications, seniority, and vacancy position, and do not create any right for the appellants/writ petitioners to be similarly regularized. As such, the appeal filed by the appellants/writ petitioners be dismissed. 17 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 18 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, while relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jivanlal v. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and others, (2016) 15 SCC 747, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- 10 “6. The petitioners were working as daily rated employees. Their services were regularized pursuant to Circular dated 05.03.2008. The orders were issued on 29.08.2008 and without any demur those orders were accepted by the petitioners. Subsequently, the department regularized the services of other daily rated employees against sanctioned and vacant posts of Forest Guards and thereafter the petitioners and similarly situated persons filed two Writ Petitions No. 7526/2011 and 7777/2011. Both the petitions were disposed of reserving liberty in favor of the petitioners to prefer representation(s). The petitioners preferred representation(s) and respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) rejected on the ground that there is no rule or provisions to change the status or cadre of regular employees. 7. Clause 2 (i) of the Circular dated 05.03.2008 states that claim of regularization of daily rated employees would be considered against sanctioned and vacant regular posts, if the candidate fulfills requisite eligibility criteria. Clause 2 (viii) states that the daily rated employees shall be considered regular employees from date of issuance of orders and their names would be placed at the bottom in the seniority list. Clause 4 states that the claim of regularization shall be considered as a one time measure. The services of the petitioners were regularized against sanctioned and 11 vacant Class IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008 and thereafter the respondent authorities according to vacancy and sanctioned strength considered names of other daily rated employees against Class III posts and that action of the State Authorities would not give fresh cause of action to the petitioners to claim regularization on Class III posts as they had already accepted offer of regularization. The claims of the petitioners were considered according to Circular dated 05.03.2008 and it is specifically stated in Clause 4 that the consideration for regularization would be as a one time measure. The petitioners were aware of the fact that their names were not considered for regularization according to their educational qualification, but they did not file writ petitions within reasonable time. The action of respondent authorities, whereby services of the petitioners were regularized, was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and the entire exercise was completed by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with Circular dated 05.03.2008. 8. Mr. Prateek Sharma has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jivanlal Vs. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and Others reported in (2016)15 SCC 747. In the aforesaid matter, the names of the some of the employees were considered for regularization after completion of 10 years of required 12 services, whereas the name of the petitioner - Jivanlal was not considered, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondent authorities to grant similar treatment. The facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of cited case. 9. In the present case, claims of the petitioners with regard to regularization were considered and services of the petitioners were confirmed against Class IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008 but they are claiming regularization against Class III posts, which is not permissible according to circular dated 5.3.2008. 10. Taking into consideration above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P/1). 11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.” 19 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the services of the appellants/writ petitioners were regularized pursuant to the Circular dated 05.03.2008. The appellants/writ petitioners were regularized against sanctioned and vacant Class-IV posts vide order dated 29.08.2008. The Circular clearly provides that regularization of daily rated employees is to be considered against sanctioned and vacant posts as a one-time measure and in accordance with the educational qualifications and eligibility criteria of the employees. 13 The appellants/writ petitioners were aware that their regularization was confined to Class-IV posts, yet they did not challenge the order within a reasonable period. 20 It is also observed that other employees were regularized against Class-III posts in certain divisions on account of specific circumstances such as seniority, qualifications, and vacancy position. Such appointments do not create a vested right in the appellants/writ petitioners to seek similar regularization, and the actions of the respondents cannot be construed as discriminatory. The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated when administrative authorities act on objective criteria, taking into account vacancies, qualifications, and seniority. 21 Reliance placed by the appellants/writ petitioners on other judgments does not advance their claim. The facts of those cases are distinguishable, as in the present matter, the appellants/writ petitioners had already accepted regularization against Class-IV posts, and the Circular explicitly provides that consideration for higher posts or change of status is a one-time measure. 22 In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P/1), rejecting the representation of the appellants/writ petitioners for regularization against Class-III posts, is neither arbitrary nor illegal. The writ appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 14 23 Accordingly, the writ appeal filed by the appellants/writ petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu