1 2026:CGHC:19529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3645 of 2026 1 - P. Dharmarao S/o P Mukund Rao Aged About 53 Years R/o Ring Road No. 1, Priyadarshani Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Amlidih, Ravigram, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Pramod Khalko S/o Leyos Xalxo Aged About 37 Years R/o Gali No. 3, Mahatama Gandhi Nagar, Amlidih, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chaturbhuj Bahera S/o Manichand Bahera Aged About 43 Years R/o Ring Road Bori Para, Kali Mandir, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director State Forensic Science Laboratory, Police Line Campus, Behind Pujari Park, Tikarapara, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Joint Director State Forensic Science Laboratory, Police Line Campus, Behind Pujari Park, Tikarapara, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Government Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 2 28/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner in the establishment of Respondent No. 3, and/or. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby directing the respondents to take fresh decision on the regularization of petitioner in just, fair and proper manner, and/or; 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order that this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are employees of respondents and were initially appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Sweeper in the year 2005 and 2014 respectively and since then, they are continuously performing their duties on the said post. Petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service however, they have not been regularized. He submits that petitioners have submitted representation dated 21.04.2025 before the Respondent No. 3 which till date is pending consideration and therefore, direction be issued to Respondent No. 3 to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners for regularization of their services within specified time frame. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking direction to consider and take decision on the representation dated 21.04.2025, he is having no objection. 3 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 employees for more than about 10 years. 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 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. 4 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 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. 5 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.” 9. Taking into consideration that the petitioners are engaged as daily wage employee since 1998, 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 their services as also considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, this writ petition 6 at this stage is disposed directing the Respondents No. 3 to consider and take decision on the representation dated 21.04.2025 (Anneure P/3) keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioners have completed of about 10 years 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 the order. 10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY