Died and Deleted) Surendra Khandekar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) by which
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.12 11:04:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:22972-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 308 of 2025 1 - Bhola Tiwari S/o Kamal Narayan Aged About 50 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As (Bholai)), R/o Fafadih, Raipur, P.S. - City Kotwali, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Sharma S/o Gopal Sharma Aged About 53 Years R/o Bramhanpara Raipur P.S. City Kotwali , Civil And Revenue District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) No.1 and 2/State For Respondent No.3 : : : ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate. Mr.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.A.Sandhya Rao, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2352 of 2014 (Died and Deleted) Surendra Khandekar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) by which the
Decision
learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein and thereafter review petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants was also dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were working on the post of Safai Karmchari under the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. In this petition, the appellants have not disclosed their date of initial appointment and even the orders of appointment have not been placed on record. A circular was issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh on 05.03.2008 whereby a decision was taken to implement the directives laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 regarding regularization of daily wagers or ad-hoc employees who were appointed between 01.01.1989 till 3 31.12.1997. Earlier, WPS No. 3207/2013 was filed by the appellants claiming therein regularization on the post of Safai Karmchari as the appellants had been working under the Municipal Corporation, Raipur for a considerable period. That petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2013 directing the respondents therein to decide the case of the appellants expeditiously and their representations. The representations made pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2013 were rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 26.04.2014 on the ground that the appellants were appointed after 31.12.1997, therefore, their claim for regularization cannot be considered. It has also been observed in the order that appointments of the appellants were irregular and recovery would be made from the erring officer who appointed them. 4. The appellants aggrieved by the said order dated 08.04.2025, passed in Review Petition No.78/2025 sought to recall/modification of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in WP(S) No. 2352/2014, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 08.04.2025. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed in WPS No. 2352/2014, wrongly observed that (i) the petitioners were not appointed accordingly to the constitutional mandate, and (ii) they were appointed sometimes after 31.12.1997, therefore they were not entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 05.03.2008, stated that the 4 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur has not committed any error in rejecting the representation moved by the appellants. But neglecting the fact that the appellants are still working for the respondent department and has been duly promoted in the post of the Sanitary Inspector holding various additional charges. So, this Court ought to exercise the review power and set aside the erroneous order/decision in the garb of exercise of the review power. He further submits that the similarly situated co-workers of the appellants who were also appointed in the honorary basis in the year 1997 and were appointed in the year 1999 have been regularized by the order dated 10.02.2023 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 4266 of 2012 in which this Court has observed in para 8 of the judgment quoting the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 held in para 11 as under:- "11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc. Accordingly, he prays for allow this petition. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders passed 5 by learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2/State and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 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 dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that the writ petitioners/appellants herein have failed to place on record any document to substantiate that they were appointed prior to 31.12.1997 to avail the benefit of the circular issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh dated 05.03.2008. It is also observed by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur in the order dated 26.04.2014 that the appointment of the writ petitioners/appellants was irregular and action would be taken against the erring officer, who appointed them. Learned Single Judge further observed that (i) the writ petitioners/appellants were not appointed according to the constitutional mandate, and (ii) they were appointed sometime after 31.12.1997, therefore, they are not entitled to get the benefit 6 of the circular dated 05.03.2008. Thus, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur has not committed any error in rejecting the representations moved by the petitioners. 9. 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 dismissing the writ petition and review petition filed by the writ petitioners/ appellants, 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. 10. 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