Beohar High Court
Case Details
1 / 8 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 1884 of 2018 Order Reserved on 14.11.2024 Order Delivered on 14.01.2025 1 - Pramod Kumar Yadav S/o S/o Shri Ramratan Yadav Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Posted As Chowkidar, In The Office Of R. E. S. Division Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Developmnet Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Sarguja, Circle Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 / 8 5 - Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner For State : :
Legal Reasoning
submission and has stated that there is prima facie no evidence to show that the petitioner is working since last 10 years regularly and, as such, according to the circular dated 05.03.2008, the petitioner is not entitled to get order of regularisation. According to record, before 31.12.1997, the petitioner has worked only for 2-3 months, as such, he cannot be said to be within the zone of consideration for regularisation as per circular dated 05.03.2008. The regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of fact 6 / 8 scrutinized and after due scrutiny, his claim for regularisation was rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it seems that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. From the perusal of the circular dated 05.03.2008, it is apparently evident that while passing the aforesaid circular in light of Uma Devi (supra) case for one time statement of the issue in respect of regularization of grade 3 and grade 4 employees, the State Government has formulated a scheme according to which if the employees were appointed during the period 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 and have continued in their service as daily wager employee or ad-hoc employee for a period of 10 years and are still working in the department, then, they are entitled to get the benefit one time regularisation on the basis of circular dated 05.03.2008. 8. In the present matter, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Engineer while issuing a memo dated 08.04.2008, in which, in categorical terms the Executive Engineer as stated that the petitioner is working since 12.09.1997 and he was paid by hand receipt and his name was also entered in the labour manual of the Department under the various schemes he has worked as Guard (Chowkidar) and time to time he has also served as driver. The SDO has also issued an experience 7 / 8 certificate in respect of the petitioner, he is having live driving license since 08.01.2007, he is being paid his salary on the basis of Collector rate, accordingly, his case was recommended for regularisation. Likewise, for considering the case of the petitioner, a committee was formulated consisting of Superintendent Engineer, Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of the RES Department in which the case of the petitioner was recommended for regularisation stating that he was appointed on 12.09.1997 and he is working in the department since then on Collectorate rate. In the matter of Uma Devi (Supra) passed by the Supreme Court as well as the order passed in the case of Maheshram Vishwakarma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others in WPS No.4788/2021, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the case of the employee for regularisation and upon consideration, it was held that since the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service on ad-hoc basis and he is still continuing in service, he is entitled for regularisation. 9. Now considering the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is successful in making out a case for regularisation while submitting that he is working in the department since 12.09.1997 and he is still working in the department as Class 4 employee (Chowkidar/Guard), the concerned Superintendent Engineer, Executive Engineer and the 8 / 8 SDO of the RES department have recommended the case of the petitioner while scrutinising the case as committee members and according to the circular dated 05.032008, the petitioner fulfills all the requisite criteria, accordingly, I am having no hesitation in allowing this writ petition while directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10.
Arguments
Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.05.2017 by which his application for regularization has been dismissed by the respondent No.3. 2. Brief facts of this case is that the petitioner is a peon who is working as Chowkidar (Guard) in the office of Rural Engineering Services Division Surajpur and was seeking regularisation on the basis of circular of the State Government dated 05.03.2008, which has been rejected by the respondent No.3. As such, the petitioner has filed this writ petition while praying following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner's case, in the interest of justice. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and passed the appropriate order for regularization of petitioner service. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. It was the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as 3 / 8 Chowkidar on daily wages by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Rural Engineering Services Division in the district of Surajpur vide order dated 12.09.1997 and thereafter the petitioner is continuously working in the department. It was the further case of the petitioner that on the basis of circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation as he fulfills all the requisite criteria for promotion. The respondent No.4 Superintendent Engineer RES Surguja circle at Ambikapur as well as the Executive Engineer RES Surajpur Division have recommended for regularisation fo the petitioner. A committee was also constituted for regularisation of the services of the petitioner, however, it is in vein and the petitioner was not regularised. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has moved a writ petition bearing WPS No.1669/2017 in which vide order dated 10.04.2017, this Court has directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order in terms of the circular dated 05.03.2008. It is on the basis of aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application for considering his case for regularisation, however, the application was turned down while passing the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has directed all the State Governments as well as other authorities to consider the case of 4 / 8 the grade three and grade four employees who are in regular service for 10 years or more in regular or irregular appointments. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, the State Government has passed circular dated 05.03.2008, according to which, the daily wager employee or ad-hoc employee, who were appointed from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997, they are required to be regularised for a one time measure if they are regularly working for a period of 10 years. The petitioner, being a class 4 employee and having work for more than 10 years, is entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid circular and he is required to be regularised. The concerned authorities have also recommended the matter of the petitioner for regularisation but the respondent No.3 has rejected the application for petitioner for regularisation without there being any valid grounds. The respondent-State has filed their return in which they have objected the petition and have stated that the petitioner has not continuously worked for 10 years, as required under the circular dated 05.03.2008, however, the petitioner is not having any document to show that he worked prior to 31.12.1997. As such, he is not eligible for regularisation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Engineer has issued a letter dated 08.04.2008 in respect of the petitioner in which he has stated that the petitioner is working in the department since 12.09.1997. His name is entered as Guard and Driver in the Department and presently he is working on the basis of Collector rate daily wages employee. He is also having 5 / 8 experience of jeep driving and is having live driving license. Likewise, for consideration of regularisation of the petitioner, a committee was constituted forming Superintendent Engineer, Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer. The committee has also recommended the case of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is working since 12.09.1997 regularly in the office of RES Division Surajpur. As such, the petitioner has completed regular 10 years of service as required under the circular, however, without any reason impugned order has been quashed. In the identical order passed in WPS No.4788/2021, this Court has considered the similar matter and has directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. The case of the petitioner is identical to that petition, as such, the petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for regularisation. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the said
Decision
With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha