1 / 6 2026:CGHC:14210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2764 of 2026 1 - Sandeep Mehta S/o Late Shyam Sunder Mehta, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Santoshsi Mata Mandir, Shitla Nagar Durg (C.G.) 2 - P. Suresh S/o Late P. Ramurti, Aged About 44 Years R/o St. No. 15, Q.No. 2/h, Zo. 1 Sec. 11, Khursipar Bhilai Ward- 38 District. Durg, Chhattisgarh 490011 3 - Mukesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Surencra Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Soniya Gandhi Nagar, St. No- 5 Zone- 1 Sector-11, Khursipar (C.G.) 4 - Khilesh Kumar Tandon S/o Late Shri Babulal Tandon, Aged About 41 Years R/o House No.- 136, Near Santosh Kirana Store, Azad Chowk, Ram Nagar, Ward No. 19 Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) 5 - Nitin Kumar Verma, S/o Late Ram Gopal Verma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Titurdih, Naya Para Durg House No. 887, Ward No.- 19 Durg (C.G.) 6 - Vikas Rajput, S/o Top Singh Rajput, Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Tripti Restaurant, Patel Complex, Padmanabhpur, Ward No.- 43, Durg (C.G.) 7 - Alok Kumar Tamrakar, S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Tamrakar, Aged About 36 Years R/o Cseb Sub Junction, Baghera Chhattisgarh Road, Durg Ward No- 56 Durg (C.G.) 8 - Laxman Singh, S/o Bhagrati, Aged About 39 Years R/o Gahira, Nawagaon, Post Khertha Bazar, District- Balod, Ward No. 15 Balod (C.G.) 9 - Gauri Shankar Ratre, S/o Bhuruwa Das Ratre Aged About 40 Years R/o 151/d, Hacl Colony, Risali Ruwabandha, Durg (C.G.) 10 - K. Ishwar Singh, S/o Late K. Shankar Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Sbi Colony, Behind Andhra Laundry House No. 132, Ward No 57, Sector 6 Bhilai, (C.G.) 2 / 6 11 - Sameer Kumar Mehta, S/o Late Shyam Sundar Mehta, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Santoshi Mata Mandir Shitla Nagar Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C 2nd And 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Registrar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State-Respondent No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Hari Om Rai, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 25.03.2026 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioners regarding regularization/absorption on the vacant sanctioned posts within a stipulated time. 10.3 The Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representation filed by the petitioners in an objective manner by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions. 3 / 6 10.4 Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are employee of respondents and were initially appointed as Peon (daily wage employee), they are continuously performing his duty on the said post. petitioners have completed more than 8 years, 9 years and 10 years of service respectively, however, they have not been regularized. Petitioners submitted representation before the respondent authorities requesting for regularization of his service, which till date is pending consideration. Therefore, direction be issued to respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners for regularization of his service within specified time frame. 3. Learned counsel for State submits that as petitioners 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 petitioners in this writ petition is that they are continuously working as daily wage employee for more than 8 years, 9 years and 10 years respectively. 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 4 / 6 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 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 / 6 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 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.” 6 / 6 9. Taking into consideration that the petitioners are engaged as daily wage employee since 2017, the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee and the relief as claimed by petitioners for regularization of her 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 petitioners to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the respondent No. 2 & 3 and if, such a 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 of about 8 years, 9 years and 10 years respectively, 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. 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA