1 2026:CGHC:18539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6466 of 2018 1 - Rajendra Khande S/o Late Amardas Khande Aged About 40 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Yadav S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Yadav Aged About 39 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gyan Singh Rajput S/o Shri Bachhan Singh Rajput, Aged About 45 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Jhaphal, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dilip Yadav S/o Shri Salik Yadav Aged About 43 Years Working As Daily Waged Employees R/o Village Chorbhatti, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deepak Tiwari S/o Late Dauram Tiwari Aged About 39 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Sakari, Tahsil, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Rajkumar Rajak S/o Late Manbodh Aged About 50 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Rabhuvir Yadav S/o Shri Gorelal Yadav Aged About 43 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Shambhu Prasad Kaiwart S/o Shri Panchram Kaiwart Aged About 43 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Parsada, Post Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Parmeshwar Awasthi S/o Late Lekhram Aged About 39 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10 - Jitendra Loniya S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad, Aged About 32 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Parsada, Post - Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11 - Govind Anuragi S/o Shri Suklal Aged About 35 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh -2- 12 - Krishna Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Late Budhram Nirmalkar Aged About 48 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Parsada, Post Bharni, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 13 - Shankar Raj S/o Shri Ganesh Raj Aged About 43 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees, R/o Village Newara, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Vinod Gupta S/o Shri Nand Kumar Gupta Aged About 44 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Village Ganiyari, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Shiekh Hasrat S/o Shri Shiekh Abhin Ullah Aged About 35 Years Working As Daily Wages Employees R/o Talapara Taiba Chouk, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Managing Director, Cg State Co Operative Marketing Federation, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Cooperative Marketing Officer Cg State Co Operative Marketing Federation, Paddy Storage Bharni, Office Near Ram Mandir, Chantapara, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Aditya Grandhi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire 3 records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.2&3 to consider and decide the representation for regularization in the light of Circular dated 05.03.08 within stipulated period and/or also direct to pay minimum pay in the principle of equal pay for equal work as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10.3 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were engaged prior to year 2005 as daily-wages employees under respondent No.3. Their employment was temporary in nature. A list of daily-wages employees has been placed on record as Annexure P/1. The petitioners were paid bonus as per the Payment of Bonus Act in the year 2013-2014. A Circular was issued by the State Government on 05.03.2008 to regulate the procedure for regularization of daily-wages employees, who have worked for 10 years or more. The petitioners have claimed regularization of their services according to Circular dated 05.03.2008. It is also pleaded that representations were made to the respondent authorities to consider their claim for regularization but till date, no decision has been taken. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working under respondent No.3 from 2002 onwards and till date, no decision has been taken with regard to regularization. He would contend that the action of the respondent authorities amounts to exploitation of the petitioners as they have served for more than 20 years under respondent No.3. He would refer to para 7 of return filed by respondents No.2 & 3, wherein, it is stated that the daily-wages employees, who were regularized earlier, have been transferred to different places. He would contend that the petitioners are also entitled to similar treatment. It is also argued by Mr. Sinha that the petitioners were engaged against sanctioned and vacant -4- posts. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Chand and Others Vs. State of Punjab and another, passed in Civil Appeal No.12139 of 2025 decided on 16/03/2026, wherein, the prayer of regularization of daily-wages employees was considered on the ground that a large number of similarly placed employees have already been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the Policy instructions, in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service. He would pray to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that the petitioners were never engaged against sanctioned and vacant post. They would further submit that the petitioners were not engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview, therefore, they have no right to claim regularization. They would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The note appended to Annexure P/1 would make it clear that the appointment of the petitioners was temporary in nature. 8. Annexure P/1 is a list of daily-wages employees working with respondent No.3. It is nowhere stated in the said memo that the petitoner were engaged or appointed against sanctioned or vacant post and have worked for 10 years according to Circular dated 05.03.2008. In the writ petition, the petitioners have not placed a single document to demonstrate that there were sanctioned and vacant posts and they were appointed against those vacancies. It is 5 also not established that any advertisement was issued or the petitioners were interviewed before their engagement or appointment. 9. The petitioners have claimed regularization in light of Circular dated 05.03.2008 which is in two parts; first part deals with regularization of the daily-wages employees, who were appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and second part deals with daily-wages employees who were appointed between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. In the second part of Circular, it is clarified that the claim of regularization of irregular appointees would be considered. Meaning thereby if a daily-wage employee was appointed against sanctioned or vacant post and there was some irregularity in a procedure of appointment, claim of a such employee can be considered for regularization. Thus, the Circular dated 05.03.2008 does not confer right in favour of daily-wages employees to claim regularization based on length of service. 10. In the matter of Prem Chand (supra), the claim of regularization of daily-wages employees was declined on account of break in service, whereas, services of similarly placed employees were considered, therefore, their prayer was allowed. Para 19 which is relevant is reproduced herein below : “19.We are unable to agree with this reasoning as it has come on record that a large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and 15.12.2006 in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service as in the case of the present Appellants. The details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who were given the benefit of the policies have been brought forward who had breaks ranging from a period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that in the case of the Appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for parity is made out as the Appellants have service record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187 days. The State cannot selectively deny the application of the policy to the Appellants, who are identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification.” -6- 11. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, passed in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 decided on 16/04/2026 struck down the Notifications issued by the State of Haryana dated 07.07.2014 whereby a policy decision was taken to regularize the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down said Notification on the ground that the State of Haryana failed to justify reasons for regularization of services of ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of advertisement or any interview. Relevant para 21 is reproduced herein below : “21. On 07.07.2014, the General Administration Department of the State Government came up with a policy decision to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. This policy, however, was slightly distinct from the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014. Significantly, what was provided for was that the services of ad hoc employees, who had or were to complete ten years of service at the future date of 31.12.2018 were to be regularised even if his/her original appointment was not made through the process of advertisement and interview. The criteria prescribed was (a) possessing the prescribed qualification for the post on the date of appointment/engagement, (b) the work discharged was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time of the initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (c) the reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind and (d) no relaxation in the prescribed criteria was permissible. In our view, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 seek to regularise the engagement of such ad hoc employees, who were not initially engaged through the process of advertisement nor after facing any interview. Such stipulations are not found in the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which we have held to be valid. There is no justification placed on record by the State of Haryana as to why services of such ad hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any advertisement or interview were sought to be regularised, that too by taking into consideration a future cut-off date of 31.12.2018. The claim of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such process. That such ad hoc employee has not faced any interview is another relevant feature. Further, there does not appear to be any rational basis for fixing a future cut-off date, which is beyond four years from the date of the Notifications. This would indicate that even when it was possible to initiate a process of regular 7 recruitment after issuance of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014, by virtue of the impugned Notifications, number of posts which could have been filled in through regular recruitment were not liable to be advertised. The intent was to accommodate such ad hoc employees, who came to be engaged, albeit temporarily, in the absence of any public advertisement or interview. We see no justifiable reason to uphold the validity of the two Notifications dated 07.07.2014 since they intend to regularise the services of such ad hoc employees, who were engaged without any advertisement and without being interviewed. To that extent, the impugned judgment of the High Court holding the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 to be arbitrary and illegal does not deserve to be interfered with.” 12. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were not engaged/appointed against sanctioned and vacant post, no advertisement was issued and they did not participate in any interview and their claim is not covered within the Circular dated 05.03.2008, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha