1 / 6 2026:CGHC:19054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3038 of 2026 Rajeshwar Rao Shinde S/o Late Gulab Rao Shinde Aged About 61 Years Posted As IV th Class Employee, Office Of Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) 2 - Deputy Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg) 3 - Commissioner Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur (Cg) 4 - Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (Cg) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate For State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.28 10:37:42 +0530 2 / 6 24/04/2026. 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quashed the order Dated 29.06.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of IVth Class Employee and given all consequential benefit. 10.3 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioner..” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as daily wage employee since 01.04.1998. She contended that petitioner had earlier filed writ petition bearing WPS No.2582 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2019 directing respondent authority to consider the claim of petitioner for regularization. The claim of petitioner for regularization was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.06.2019. It is also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is still under employment as daily wage employee and in view of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472, Jaggo Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826, Bhola Nath 3 / 6 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 and Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735), petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation before the respondent authority and in turn, the concerned authority may be directed to consider and decide the representation in the light of aforementioned decisions at the earliest, keeping in mind the age of superannuation of petitioner as 30th June 2026. 4. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and only seeking permission to submit representation to be considered by authorities, she is having no objection to the limited prayer. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. Claim of the petitioner is that petitioner is continuously working as daily wage employee since 01.04.1998. 7. In case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wage employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo (supra) 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 4 / 6 international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath (supra) 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. 9. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh (supra) 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. 5 / 6 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 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 6 / 6 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.” 10. In the aforementioned facts of case, more particularly the period of engagement of petitioner on daily wage basis and recent decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of regularization as discussed in preceding paragraphs, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit a comprehensive fresh representation before respondent authorities seeking regularization and if such representation is submitted, concerned authorities shall re-consider and decide the claim of petitioner sympathetically in an objective manner, at the earliest, keeping in mind the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) Jaggo (supra), Bhola Nath (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra). 11. It is ordered accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen