1 / 9 2026:CGHC:12811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3180 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Tiju Ram Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Baroda Behind Primary School Near Khalari Mandir Mahasamund C.G. (Working As Skilled Worker Helper) 2 - Purshottam Ram Sahu S/o Khorbhara Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Chandi Nagar Labhandi Near Neha Kirana Store Raipur C.G. (Working As Unskilled Worker Helper) 3 - Dev Nath Yadav S/o Sundru Ram Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Khaira Near Bazar Chowk Mahasamund C.G. (Working As Unskilled Worker Helper) 4 - Rajesh Kumar Rai S/o Shyam Lal Rai Aged About 41 Years R/o 139-H Bhutahi Para Sona Payri Distt.- Raipur C.G. Working As Helper 5 - Chagan Lal Sahu S/o Kashi Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o H.No. 531 Near Yadav Dairy Santoshi Nagar Raipur C.G. Working As Skilled Worker Helper 6 - Sunil Vishakarma S/o Shiv Narayan Vishakarma Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Hanuman Mandir Bypass Road Main Road Raipur C.G. Working As Helper Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.03.24 10:44:04 +0530 2 / 9 7 - Jai Kumar Jagat S/o S.S Jagat, R/o Behind Sindhi Dharamsala Near Katora Talab Raipur C.G. Working As Helper 8 - Shailesh Kumar Sharma S/o Janradan Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Amapara Bajrang Nagar Near Vishwakarma Machinery In Front Of Citizen School Raipur C.G. Working As Helper 9 - Shankar Lal Sahu S/o Murli Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Datrenga Sezbahar Thakur Dev Chowk Raipur C.G. Working As Helper 10 - Shiv Kumar Mandal S/o Ram Prasad Mandal Aged About 39 Years R/o H.No. 336 Sheetla Mandir Chowk Nardaha Raipur C.G. Working As Helper 11 - Dwarika Prasad Dhiwar S/o Basant Dhiwar Aged About 39 Years R/o H.No. 63/1 Rawabhata Village Parsada Raipur C.G. Working As Helper 12 - Gajendra Kumar Kurrey S/o Jiya Lal Kurrey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Baroda Behind Primary School Near Khalari Mandir Mahasamund C.G. (Working As Unskilled Worker Helper) 13 - Prakash Kumar Tandan S/o Shiv Prasad Tandan Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 6 Village Borsi Awaspara Parmgarh Distt.- Janjgir-Champa C.G. Working As Skilled Worker 14 - Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Nandi Chowk Tikrapara Raipur C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker 15 - Narendra Kumar Dhruv S/o Meghnanth Dhruv Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Baroda Behind Primary School Near Khalari Mandir Mahasamund C.G. (Working As Unskilled Worker Helper) 16 - Rupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Ishwar Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Rozbahar Dunda Raipur C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker Helper 17 - Rupan Ekka S/o Juwas Ekka Aged About 31 Years R/o H.No. 97 Gali No. 3 Tolapara Near Sarkari School Jashpur C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker 3 / 9 Helper 18 - Sandeep Kujur S/o Amrush Kujur Aged About 35 Years R/o H.No. Ward No. 5 Near Prateek School Jabla Jashpur C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker Helper 19 - Namdev Verma S/o Beni Ram Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o H.No. 333 Main Road Boriya Kala Bhatapara Raipur C.G. Working As Skilled Worker Helper 20 - Sohan Lal Yadav S/o Shobha Ram Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o H.No. 78 Civil Line Gariyaband Distt.- Gariyaband C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker Helper 21 - Firoz Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan Aged About 52 Years R/o Daya Nagar Daldal Shivani Raipur C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker Helper 22 - Nepal Singh Sahu S/o Sewak Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o H.No. 14 Ward No. 1 Mongrapali Tendukona Mahasamund Distt.- Mahasamund C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker Helper 23 - Uttam Banjare S/o Gajadhar Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Satnami Para Sarora Darla Sarora C.G. Working As Helper 24 - Sunil Kumar Sahu S/o Nathu Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Govt. School Imam Chowk Near Jaitkham Mathpurena Raipur C.G. Working As Unskilled Worker Helper (All Petitioners Are Working In The Office Of Respondent No.- 3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Works Department D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Engineer Pwd Nirman Bhawan Nava Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 / 9 3 - Executive Engineer Pwd Raipur Division No. 1 Sector 19 Nava Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer Pwd Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra and Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocates For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 17/03/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the petitioners from respondent authority. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners in the light of circular dated 05/03/2008 and order dated 10/02/2023 passed by this Hon'ble court in WPS No 4293/2012 directing the respondents to consider their case for regularization. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given” 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as daily wage employees on collector rate. Since, the 5 / 9 initial engagement, petitioners are continuously working on daily wage basis and as of now petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service on daily wage basis. He further contended that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioners are also entitled for consideration for regularization of their service on the post, on which, they are working for more than 10 years. He, however, submits that at this stage petitioners may be permitted to submit fresh representation before the appropriate authorities and the said authorities be directed to take decision on the representation expeditiously thereafter. 4. Learned State counsel submits that as petitioners are 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 petitioners is that petitioners were engaged in service as daily wage employee on collector rate and are continuously working for more than a decade. Now they have become overage. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent decisions have taken into consideration its earlier decision in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and thereafter considering the facts of those cases, in particular engagement of petitioners/appellants therein continuously for more than a decade, have considered the issue of regularization of their service. 6 / 9 8. In case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 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 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 7 / 9 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 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 8 / 9 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.” 11. In the aforementioned facts of case more particularly the period of engagement of petitioners as daily wage employee 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 authority seeking regularization and if such representation is submitted, concerned authority shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners sympathetically in an objective 9 / 9 manner, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) Jaggo (supra), Bhola Nath (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra). Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen