1 2026:CGHC:15498 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3882 of 2021 Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Aged About 50 Years Working In Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, R/o Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- The Joint Director Department of Urban Administration and Development , R.D.A. Bhavan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajeev Dubey (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-07-2021. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the impugned order/letter dated 27.02.2021 (Ann.P.1) passed by the Respondent NO.3 rejecting the claim of petitioner for regularization. 10.3.That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to pass order for regularization of service of the petitioner in accordance with law as the similarly placed employees has been regularized on 10.10.2019 and he may be regularized from date when the Respondent No.4 regularized i.e. 10.10.2019. 10.4. Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5. That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 27.02.2021 was passed by respondent No.3, whereby claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected misinterpreting circular dated 05.03.2008. He would further submit that according to muster roll(s) the petitioner has been in continuous service without any actual break, therefore, the ground taken by the respondent authorities with regard to break of service is factually incorrect. He would contend that other similarly situated employees, including respondent No.4, have been regularized vide order dated 10.10.2019 by the respondent authorities but failed to extend same benefit to the petitioner; thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and respondent authorities may be directed to consider the petitioner for regularization. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the representation made by petitioner for regularization was rejected only on the ground that the Joint Director, Urban Administration & Development, Regional office, Bilaspur did not recommend the name of the petitioner for regularization pursuant to the notification dated 05.03.2008. 6. It appears that respondent authorities have misinterpreted the Clause B (iii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, who worked under the respondents since 1997. 7. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 27.02.2021 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization applying the Clause B (iii) in its proper perspective. 8. In the result, the petition stands allowed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim