1 2026:CGHC:15961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3067 of 2026 1 - Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Hiraman Sahu Aged About 62 Years Currently Posted As Sub-Engineer (Civil), Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Project Division- Korea, Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Department Of Housing And Environment Through Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Its Commissioner, Paryawas Bhavan Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Paryawas Bhavan Sector - 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner :Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1. :Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 to 4 :Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.15 16:32:31 +0530 2 Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case. 10.2. It is payed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner and hence grant him consequential benefits, in a time bound manner. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner is an employee of respondents and was appointed as Sub Engineer on daily wages under the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and was subsequently placed in the work-charged establishment on 15.03.1995, since then he is continuously performing his duty on the said post over 38 years, however, he has not been regularized. Petitioner submitted representations before respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P-11 requesting for regularization of his service, which till date is pending consideration, therefore, direction be issued to respondent No. 4 to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioner for regularization of her service within specified time frame. She places reliance upon the judgment passed by 3 Division Bench of this Court in case of Gopi Sao and Ors. 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 petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is 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 petitioner in this writ petition is that he is continuously working as daily wage employee since 1988, however, till date he has 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 38 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 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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 petitioner is engaged on contractual basis since 1988, the circular issued by the State 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, as also decision in case of Gopi Sao (supra) this writ petition at this stage is disposed permitting the petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 4 and if, such a representation is submitted, concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioner has 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. 7 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi