-1- 2026:CGHC:16063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3092 of 2026 1 - Smt. Mejhren Tirkey D/o Johan Tirkey Aged About 50 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Bhitghara, Tahsil- Bagicha, District Jashpur (Cg) 2 - Smt. Hemanti Bai W/o Shri Shatrudhan Ram Aged About 32 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Ayushman Arogya Mandir Tuba, Tahsil- Farsabahar, District- Jashpur (Cg) 3 - Smt. Prabha Kerketta W/o Shri Rajesh Tirkey Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Tambakachhar, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) 4 - Jyotsna Toppo D/o Shri Vijay Toppo Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Tahsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur (Cg) 5 - Smt. Bilchan Barwa W/o Shri Atma Toppo Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Samarbar, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) 6 - Smt. Chandrakanti Behra W/o Shri Raja Ram Behra Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Gamhariya, Tahsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur (Cg) 7 - Smt. Sanjana Bhagat W/o Shri Ramkumar Bhagat Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Gudlu, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) 8 - Smt. Anita Singh W/o Shri Dineshwar Singh Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Post Of Second A.N.M. (Contract Basis) At Govt. Sub Health Center Pirai, Tahsil- Bagicha, District- Jashpur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Cg) 2 - The Joint Director Health Services Department, Division Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Cg) 3 - The Chief Medical Officer Jashpur, District- Jashpur (Cg) … Respondent(s) Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.04.09 13:03:54 +0530 -2- For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 08 /04/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the series of judicial verdicts are referred above right from Umadevi's case (supra) read with Narendra Kumar Tiwari's case (supra) upto recent verdicts as a onetime measure within a time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any order relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. An affidavit is filed herewith in support of this petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are employees of respondent department and are appointed on the post of Second A.N.M. as contractual basis by order dated 01.09.2015, since then they are continuously performing their duty on the said post. Petitioners are in service since 2015 however, they have not been regularized. Therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before the concerned authority and direction be issued to the concerned authority to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners for regularization of their service within specified time frame. They place reliance upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Gopi Sao and Ors. -3- Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors in a writ appeal bearing WA No. 14 of 2017 dated 07.012.2018. 3. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and are only seeking direction to consider and take decision on pending representation, he is having no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Claim as raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are continuously working as contractual basis since 2015, however, till date they have not been regularized. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wages 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. 7. 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 -4- 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. 8. 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 -5- 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. xx 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.” 9. Taking into consideration that the petitioners are engaged on contractual basis since 2015, the circular issued by the State -6- Government dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee who are working prior to 1997 and the relief as claimed by petitioner for regularization of his service as also considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is disposed permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation before concerned authorities and if, such representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioners have completed as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of representation. 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Jyoti