High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27139-DB NAFR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.24 17:31:26 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 389 of 2025 Smt. Malti Bai W/o Shri Radheshyam Aged About 48 Years R/o House No. D-01, Jawahar Nagar, Ambedkar Awas, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ...Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Durg, Division Durg (C.G.) 3 - Collector Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate No.1 to 3/State General For Respondent : Mr.Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate No.4 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.06.2025 2 1. Heard Mr.Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr.Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 on IA No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 277 days in filing the present writ appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal is heard finally. 4. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2738 of
Decision
2024 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as daily wages worker by respondent No.4 vide order dated 30.03.1998 in the Municipal Corporation, Durg as per compassionate appointment in place of Smt. Chitkunwar Bai, who was working under respondent no.4 from 31.12.1988 who died on 24.09.1995 and thereafter the appellant was appointed on 30.03.1998 on compassionate grounds. The appellant joined her service on 31.03.1998, since then she has been serving in Municipal Corporation, Durg with full responsibility and complete 3 dedication. 6. The appellant is being paid very less payment for her service as daily wages worker. At present, considering the increasing inflation and price hike day by day, the salary being paid to her is not sufficient. Due to increasing age, diseases are also increasing, due to which a lot of expenditure is incurred on treatment and medicines etc. Thus, the appellant is facing very financially difficulties. The appellant moved representation before the respondent No.4 on 28.05.2014 for regularization of her service, but no further action was taken. The appellant moved representation again before respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 on 24.09.2018 and also before respondent No.1 on 26.09.2018 requesting him to regularize her, but no further action was taken. The appellant moved representations again before respondent No. 4 on 07.05.2019, 26.05.2020 and 23.07.2021 requesting him to regularize her, but unfortunately this time also no further action was taken by the respondent authorities. The appellant filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 10.06.2024 on the ground of alternate remedy to raise dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act is improper. Learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the dispute of regularization in the service is not covered under 4 Section 2(K), 2A of Industrial Dispute Act and hence the petitioner has no remedy but to prefer writ petition before the Hon'ble Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the appellant has served with the respondent No.4 since 31.03.1998 (more than 26 years) and hence she is entitled to be considered for regularization before the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 has illegally not considered the representations made by petitioner for her regularization. He also submits that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the circumstances that the appellant had also sought for consideration of her regularization as per the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 and thus the State Government was bound to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of their circular, but the writ petition was held not maintainable having alternate remedy. He contended that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the appellant has given service since 31.03.1998 and there is legitimate expectation of regularization is created, which could not be denied on technical grounds. He further contended that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the action on the part of respondents not considering the representation of the appellant for regularization is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not barred by alternate remedy, even if 5 there is alternate remedy the Hon'ble Court under the jurisdiction of 226 of the constitution of India can entertain the writ petition as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbansh Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submit that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has observed that it is not in dispute that the Corporation is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the petitioner is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, disputed facts are involved and petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as such, 6 the writ petition at this juncture is not maintainable. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to raise industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer who shall refer the matter to the appropriate Government, if dispute is not settled, which is State Government in the present case who in turn shall refer the case to the Labour Court/ Industrial Court having jurisdiction to decide the dispute and disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute before the authority as stated above. 11.Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu