1 2026:CGHC:16860-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 197 of 2025 1 - Loknath Sahu S/o Late Shyam Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Chandra Shekhar Ward No. 13, Tahsil - Sukma, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 - Jyoti Payam D/o Shri P. Reddy Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Golapalli, Tahsil - Konta, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 - Raghuraj Baghel S/o Shri Kamal Baghel Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil And Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Kanchan D/o Shri Lachmaiya Aged About 32 Years R/o Bagichapara, Tahsil - Sukma, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Ramkumari Khare W/o Shri Saituram Khare Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shanti Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 6 - Gopal Yadav S/o Shri Lakhnuram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And Post, Tongpal, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 7 - Maniram Kashyap S/o Shri Bhikhariram Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chipurpal, Post - Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 8 - Rohit Sinha S/o Shri S.R. Sinha Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil Sukma, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 9 - Hiresh Thakur S/o Shri Subatram Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Para, Konta, Tahsil - Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 10 - Parwati Sodi W/o Shri Rajuram Sodi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Urmapal, Post - Rokel, Tahsil - Chhindragh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 2 11 - Mellam Rajkumar S/o Late Venkteshwar Rao Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post - Konta (Wrongly Mentioned Kontra In Impugned Order), District Sukma Chhattisgarh 12 - Dinesh Sinha S/o Shri Mahadev Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kindarwada, Post - Pushpal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 13 - Vivek Bhushan Sori S/o Shri Santram Sori Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post - Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 14 - Dinuram Bhandari S/o Shri Motisingh Bhandari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Rokel, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 15 - Meera Rana W/o Shri Dronacharya Rana Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shanu Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 16 - Vanjam Dulah S/o Shri Vanjam Bhima Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Punpalli, Post - Dubbatota, Tahsil - Konta, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 17 - Smt. Genda Washnikar W/o Shri S. S. Washinikar Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post - Tongpal, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 18 - Mallika Kashyap S/o Shri Chamruram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Pujaripal, Post - Chhindgarh, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 19 - Madkami Deva S/o Shri Madkami Kosa Aged About 39 Years R/o Village - Mekhavaya, Post-Urmapal, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 20 - Manisha Padami W/o Shri Hidmaram Padami Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Reddipal, Post-Chhindgarh, Tahsil-Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 21 - Laxman Rao S/o Late Papaiya Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Bhejji, Tahsil - Konta, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 22 - Kamlesh Manjhi S/o Shri Sukman Manjhi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rati Naikras, Post - Pakela, Tahsil Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 3 23 - Manita Sodi D/o Shri Lakkha Sodi Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sheetla Ward, Tahsil - Konta, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 24 - Krishna Kumar Nag S/o Shri Pandruram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post - Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 25 - Gangaram Sodi S/o Shri Devaram Sodi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ganjenar, Post Kodripal, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 26 - Dudhi Hitesh S/o Shri Dudhi Erra Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Gadiras (Tamiyapara), Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 27 - Kawasi Sunita D/o Shri Kawasi Lakhma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Penta, Post - Dornapal, Sukma, Tahsil - Konta, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 28 - Mannu Kumar Nag S/o Shri Lakhanram Nag Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Tongpal, Tahsil Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 29 - Vetti Masa S/o Shri Vetti Mukka Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dodpal, Post - Korra, Tahsil - Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 30 - Tulsiram Markam S/o Shri Gangaram Markam Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Rajamunda, Borgapara, Tahsil - Chindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 31 - Jitendra Dhruw S/o Shri Belsingh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Patelpara, Post Tongpal, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 32 - Vetti Nurani D/o Late Shri Vetti Kanna Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dondra And Post - Konta, Tahsil - Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 33 - Mousam Mangla W/o Late Shri Mousam Buchcha Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Dondra, Post Konta, Tahsil - Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 34 - Bhime Kunjam D/o Late Gangaram Kunjam Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Gandhi Nagar, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 35 - Mamta Juresiya D/o Shri D.R. Juresiya Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post - Ramaram, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 36 - Sukhram Nag S/o Shri Mahadev Nag Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chipurpal, Post - Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 37 - Pramila Sahu D/o Shri Kailash Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Patnampara, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 38 - Sukkam Nag D/o Shri Budhram Nag Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Chipurpal, Post - Pakela, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 39 - Laxmi Nag S/o Shri Lachchiram Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Atkariras, Post - Bhandarras, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, Distt. Sukma Chhattisgarh 40 - K. Geeta Rao D/o Shri Rataiya Rao Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Patnampara, Sukma, Tahsil - Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 41 - Sodi Deva S/o Sodi Hunga Aged About 34 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Para, Nagar Panchayat - Konta, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh 42 - Sunita Nag D/o Shri Laxminath Nag Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Kundanpal, Tahsil - Chhindgarh, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Schedule Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Sukma, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s)/writ petitioners : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. 5 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 2991/2022 and connected matters whereby the learned Single Judge, while disposing of those writ petitions, has directed the respondent authorities to get the sanctioned posts available while making request to the State Government and the State Government was further directed to create posts of Peon and if the vacancies were not available for the petitioners in the near future, then to give preference to the writ petitioners to accommodate them on regular basis in near future. The respondent-State was further directed not to issue vacancy of any regular post of Peon till the writ petitioners were accommodated so that they may not be deprived of their genuine and reasonable grievance. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellants/writ petitioners are that the Collector District Sukma published advertisement dated 01.06.2012 (Annexure P/1 to the writ petition) for recruitment of 60 vacant post of Grade-IV regular employees and as per condition No. 20, contingency employee could be considered from the waiting list for appointment (Annexure P/1 to WPS No. 2991/2022). The appellants were selected as regular employees and their names found place in the select list (Annexure P/2 to WPS No. 2991/2022). The respondents issued 6 appointment orders in the year 2013 and all orders showing that 150 employees have been appointed under the work charges contingency establishment in the pay scale of Rs. 4750+7440+1300 and no one appointed as a regular employee. As on 31.08.2017 two orders have been issued i.e. order No. 1388 (Annexure P/4 to WPS No. 2991/2022) and order No. 1374 (Annexure P/6 to WPS No. 2991/2022) by the respondents authorities. Order no. 1388 was issued for 45 regular permanent employee after completion of two years of probation period and in order No. 1374 issued for 92 work charged contingency employees after three years completion of probation period. The appellants/petitioners relates to order No. 1374 dated 31.08.2017 and at the time of recruitment they found their name in selection list (Annexure P/2 to WPS No. 2991/2022) but not regularized as permanent employee whereas employees related to order No. 1388 dated 31.08.2017 have been regularized as permanent while their name were not found in selection list (Annexure P/2 to WPS No. 2991/2022). 4. Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the Union of the employees i.e. Chhattisgarh Laghu Vetan Karmchari Sangh filed writ petition WPS No. 6211/2018 (Annexure P/8 to WPS No. 2991/2022) in which this Hon'ble Court ordered for deciding the claim of writ petitioners but as on 31.10.2018 (Annexure P/9 of writ petition) Collector Sukma cancelled the order no. 1374 dated 31.08.2017. The appellants/petitioners filed a writ petition individually in first round and a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed the orders on 15.02.2021(Annexure P/12 to WPS No. 2991/2022) and issue a direction to Collector Sukma for deciding the grievance of the writ petitioners/ appellants. The Collector passed an order on 03.11.2021 (Annexure P/13 to WPS No. 2991/2022) for 30 petitioners/employees and passed 7 the order on 29.12.2021 (Annexure P/13 to WPS No. 2996/2022) for remaining petitioners/employees. Findings of Collector was that, employees are entitled only for work charged contingencies and rejected the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners. 5. Mr. Agrawal further submits that the said conduct of the respondent authorities was challenged by the writ petitioners before a learned Single Bench of this Court which stood disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2025, which is sought to be challenged in this appeal as the learned Single Judge failed to understand the facts of the case and relied upon the submission made by the respondent authorities without supporting any document. Even though the learned Single Judge agreed that the writ petitioners may not be deprived from their genuine and reasonable grievance, and directed the respondent authorities to make every endeavour for getting the appellants/petitioners accommodated on the regular post, but the learned Single Judge failed to understand the distinction between probationary regularization and contractual regularization and passed the impugned order. The present is a case of probationary regularization where an employee is initially appointed on a probationary basis and then becomes regular employee. The appellants/petitioners were initially selected for regular 60 vacant post in the year 2013 as per selection list (Annexure P/2) but respondents authorities issued a work charged contingencies orders for all (Annexure P/3 and Annexure P/5). If respondents authorities filled its vacant post in the year 2017 certainly appellants/petitioners are entitled for the same but respondents authorities without examining the selection list committed discrimination between the two groups of employees i.e. one who found their name in selection and one who failed to find their name in selection list. The acts of the respondent authorities are violative 8 of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays that this writ appeal may be allowed and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to extend the benefit of Grade IV regular employees to the appellants from the date of completion of two years of probation period. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submit that the learned Single Judge has not committed any irregularity or illegality while passing the impugned order. Placing reliance on the return filed in the writ petitions, Mr. Rathi submits that the advertisement was issued for filling up of Class IV posts lying vacant in different offices in District Sukma. The writ petitioners participated in the same and vide order passed in the year 2013, a bunch of candidates were selected vide different orders all appointments being made under the work charged contingency establishment rules. Subsequently, the Department, after three years of service, issued two orders on 31.08.2017 wherein two sets of candidates were placed in different categories. One set of employees were regularised against the regular post under the State Government as per the seniority and merit and the other set of employees were regularised under the work charged contingency establishment as per their seniority and merit. In the advertisement, it was specifically mentioned that after appointment of the candidates in the regular post the candidates whose names find place in the waiting list as per their seniority were appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Sukma District on the vacant post of Contingency Fund and therefore they are entitled for the financial benefits/wages as per the rules and regulations in respect to the said employees. If any new posts are created and vacancies arose in contingent employees within the Department of the District, then the candidature of the candidates from the waiting list was to be considered 9 and appointed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and materials available on record. 8. The main grievance of the appellants was that when they were selected on the basis of same advertisement issued by the Collector and were fulfilling the requisite qualification, then there should not have been any discrimination in giving status to them. 60 candidates were given the benefit of regular employee and are getting more benefits though the mode of selection and recruitment process was one and the same. The stand of the State/respondent is that whenever vacant post would be available, the writ petitioners would be accommodated and they would be given the benefit of regular pay scale. 9. The learned Single Judge has directed the respondent authorities to get the posts sanctioned by making request to the State Government and if the vacancies are not available, then to give preference to the writ petitioners in future, if any vacancy arises and the respondents have further been restrained from issuing any advertisement for the vacancies if any arises in future till all the writ petitioners are accommodated. The said approach of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unjustified. The learned Single Judge, while not granting direct regularization, has issued directions to the State to consider creation of posts and to accommodate the respondents in future. Such directions, in our considered opinion, are in the nature of equitable relief and do not mandate automatic regularization. The direction restraining the State from issuing fresh vacancies until the respondents are accommodated, though intended to protect their interests, may impinge upon 10 administrative discretion. 10.Pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2025, wherein this Court had directed the learned State counsel to produce a list of candidates who were selected for the post in question according to which, all the appellants/writ petitioners were below the vacancy which were filled i.e. 60, a covering memo has been filed by the learned State counsel on 01.04.2025 enclosing a list of the selected candidates. A perusal of the said list would demonstrate that the appellants/writ petitioners were much beyond the vacant position of 60. As such, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge appears to be broadly equitable and do not suffer from perversity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 11.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge shall be complied with by the respondent authorities in its letter and spirit, subject to administrative feasibility and in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.04.15 18:34:48 +0530