High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18114 AFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.23 18:23:27 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4484 of 2021 1 - Sardha Ram Chouhan S/o Shri Mangal Chouhan, Aged About 47 Years Working As Peon, Govt. Middle School Sarheona Block Baramkela District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh versus --- Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District 2 - The Director, Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh, Raigarh, District 4 - The District Education Officer, Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chhattisgarh, The Block Education Officer, Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Raigarh, District : 6 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4510 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
and as per the order dated 21/07/2008 passed by this Court in WPS No.3845/2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that initially, the petitioners were appointed as contingency paid employees on ad-hoc basis. However, subsequently, they have been extended benefit of 5 regularisation. Thereafter, the petitioners claimed for regular pay scale as well as seniority from the date of initial appointment as per the order passed in Satish Kumar Mandloi (supra). When no action has been taken by the authorities, the petitioners preferred representations before his Court which were disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to make representations. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners submitted their representations, however, the same have been rejected by the order Annexure P-1 in an illegal and arbitrary manner, that too, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. 4. (A) Learned counsel for the State/respondents, per contra, would submit that the present petitions are the second round of litigation. In the earlier found of writ petition, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to make representations. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their representations and the same have duly been considered by the authorities and by assigning sufficient and cogent reason, rejected the representations of the petitioners by order Annexure P-1. (B) According to the learned counsel for the State, initially the petitioners were taken into service on contingency basis, thereafter, their services were regularized and the regular pay scale as also the seniority has been given to the petitioners from the date of their regularization. (C) Learned counsel further submits that the State of M.P. had issued the order dated 15/12/1992, by which, it has been provided that those daily wager employee who had engaged prior to 01/01/1987 and completed three years of service or more, as on 01/01/1990 would be 6 entitled to regular pay scale from the date of regularization under the contingency establishment fund. However, in the case at hand, the appointment of the petitioner has been made much after 1988, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. He also submits that the decision rendered by the S.A.T. in O.A. No.1979/1991 in Satish Kumar Mandloi (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as per the extreme need and requirement of the department and subsequently, his service was regularized, whereas, the case of the present petitioners is entirely different with the case of Satish Kumar Mandloi (supra) and hence, they are not entitled the benefit as per the decision of the S.A.T. in the aforesaid matter. (D) Learned counsel would categorically submitted that the petitioners were appointed on daily rated basis on Collector rate under contingency fund. Subsequently, pursuant to the circular, their services were regularized under the contingency fund establishment. Accordingly, the petitioners entitled for the benefit from the date of their regularization. He would submit that the order impugned is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents. 6. From the pleadings and documents, it is quite vivid that the petitioners were appointed in the respondents department in the year 1995 on temporary basis initially for a period of 89 days, however, their services were extended from time to time. Pursuant to the circular dated 05/03/2008, the benefit of regularization was extended in favour of the 7 petitioners and also giving the benefit of regular pay scale as also the seniority from the date of their regularization. From the order dated 15/12/1992 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, it has been provided that those daily wager employee who had engaged prior to 01/01/1987 and completed 3 years of service or more on 01/01/1990, would be entitled for regular pay scale from the date of regularization under the contingency establishment fund. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners entered into the service in the year 1995 and as such, as per the circular dated 15/12/1992, the petitioners are entitled the benefit of regular pay scale as also seniority from the date of regularization, not from the initial date of appointment. 7. As far as the decision rendered by the S.A.T. in Satish Kumar Mandloi (supra) is concerned, the said petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as per the extreme and need requirement of the department, whereas the cases at hand, are on different footing, therefore, the decision rendered by the S.A.T. would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners failed to placed any cogent and sufficient material in support of their respective cases. 8. In the matter of Vijay K. Dhand and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2004) 13 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that claim for regularization from the date of initial appointment cannot be ordered being contrary to government instructions. 9. In the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board and others Vs. Swaran Singh, (2005) 13 SCC 246, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the workman appointed on ad-hoc basis in 1976 being regularized in 1982 is not entitled to be regularized w.e.f. earlier date. 8 10. In the matter of Union of India and others Vs. Sheela Rani, (2007) 15 SCC 230, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again held that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as chances of their upsetting the seniority of regular appointees cannot be overlooked. In the case before the Supreme Court, the concerned employee was engaged as casual worker on 17/11/1982 and was regularized w.e.f. 26/09/2001 and her claim for regularization from the date of initial appointment was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. Regularization from a particular date has several aspects on which the order is passed since it depends on availability of post in a particular office, inter se seniority of persons working on casual basis/daily wagers and seniority of regular appointees. 12. In the light of the above judgments of Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that to pass an order of regularization from a particular date is basically a policy decision and this court need not interfere in such matters unless a right has accrued in favour of the employees to be regularized from a particular date which is taken to be cut-off date by the government.
Arguments
1 - Ghurau Chouhan S/o Shri Satyanand Chouhan Aged About 58 Years Working As Peon, Government High School Bonda Block Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 2 - The Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Block Educatio Officer Baramkela, District Raigarh 5 - Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4532 of 2021 1 - Kshir Sagar Yadav S/o Shri Sadhuram, Aged About 48 Years R/o Bade Nawapara, Tahsil Baramkela District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer, Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh The Block Education Officer, Baramkela, District Raigarh 5 - (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 6 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4545 of 2021 1 - Rameshwar Prasad Mehar S/o Shri Mohit Ram Mehar Aged About 45 Years Working As Peon, Under The Block Education Officer, Baramkela District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 2 - The Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Education Officer Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - The Block Education Officer Baramkela District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4631 of 2021 1 - Nehru Lal Saral S/o Shri Dhowa Ram Aged About 44 Years Residence Of Village Lara, Post Kodpali, Police Station Pussore District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) 2 - The Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector (Tribal Welfare Branch) Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 4 - The District Education Officer Collectorate Premises, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. The Block Education Officer Baramkela District Raigarh 5 - Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Dy. Govt. Adv. Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/04/2025 1. Since the common facts and grounds involved in these petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPS No.4484/2021 are being referred. 2. Challenge in these petitions is to the impugned Annexure P-1 passed by the respondent/District Education Officer, by which, the representations submitted by the respective petitioners have been rejected. The petitioners also seeking direction towards the respondent authorities to pay the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment as well as seniority with all consequential benefits in the light of order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in O.A. No.1979/1991 Satish Kumar Mandloi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Decision
13. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions have no substance, and hence all the petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Gowri/ Amardeep 9 Head Note WPS No. 4484 of 2021 Regularization should be prospective and not retrospective नि(cid:2)यनि(cid:4)तीकरण भनि(cid:11)ष्यल्ቌी हो(cid:2)ा चानिहये (cid:2)ा निक भूतल्ቌी