Nafr High Court
Case Details
YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.12 11:45:15 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:4484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3927 of 2024 Arun Kumar Tandan S/o. Komal Das Tandan, Aged About 39 Years R/o. Village Sendh, Sector, -4 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - General Manager (Admin), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. --- Respondents WPS No. 3939 of 2024 Mahesh Kumar Sonkar S/o Khelawan Sonkar Aged About 44 Years R/o Mathpurena, Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 62 Post Office Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 6602 of 2024 Lakshmikant Meshram S/o Late Shri Shivcharan Meshram Aged About 40 Years R/o Ambedkar Nagar Tilak Nagar Ward Janta Colony Gudhiyari, District- Raipur, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Environment Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Chairman Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, 492002, C.G. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, 492002, C.G. --- Respondents 3 WPS No. 6569 of 2024 Arjun Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Purushottam Lal Chandrakar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Bodra, Post - Rasni, Tahsil - Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Environment Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chairman, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikrarn, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, 492002, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, 492002, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3989 of 2024 Sheikh Shahid Mansuri S/o. Sheikh Rafiq Mansuri Aged About 45 Years R/o. Dhamdha Naka, Near Yadav Dairy, Urla Road, Ward No. 15, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3935 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Patel S/o Mohan Lal Patel, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Tuta, Post Office Mana Basti, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3936 of 2024 Narayan Prasad Dhiwar S/o Late Laxman Dhiwar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village And Post Palaud, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 5 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgrth 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Execurtive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3937 of 2024 Lokesh Kumar Sahu S/o Narottam Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Palaud, Tehsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents 6 WPS No. 3951 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Santosh Kumar Soni S/o Late Shri Ishwari Prasad Soni Aged About 43 Years R/o Sai Vatsal Villa, Plot No. 193/3, Vip Nagar, Phase-Iii, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3969 of 2024 Vedprakash Maheshwari S/o Roshan Lal Maheshwari Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bahanakadi, Post Kurud Camp, Tehsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, 7 Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3970 of 2024 Devanand Patel S/o. Mohan Lal Patel, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Village Tuta, Post Mana Basti, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur C.G. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 4 - General Manager (Admin), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector -19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. --- Respondents WPS No. 3973 of 2024 Prakash Baghel S/o Devadas Baghel, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner 8 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 3982 of 2024 Rajni D/o. Asarfi Lal Aged About 34 Years R/o. Block 10/b, Street No. 3, Sector-2, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 9 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 4008 of 2024 Bhojraj Sahu S/o. Tukaram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o. Village Tuta, Post Office Mana Basti, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus ---Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 4009 of 2024 Komal Prasad Pal, S/o Late Budharu Pal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tuta, Post Mana Basti, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 10 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 4064 of 2024 Raju Dahikar S/o. J.J. Dahikar Aged About 46 Years R/o. Behind House Of Dr. Lohana, Jal Grih Marg, Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents 11 WPS No. 4065 of 2024 Satish Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Trilochan Ram Yadu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Riko, Post Office Palaut, Tehsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhatttisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 4067 of 2024 Kishore Kumar Patel S/o Ramu Ram Patel, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Parsada, Post Office Palaud, Tehsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, 12 Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 4114 of 2024 Renuka Minj D/o Late Peter Minj Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 719/1 Part, Ward No. 11, Mathura Nagar (Azad Nagar), Chikhlakasa, Dallirajhara, District Balod (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents 13 WPS No. 4266 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Shahi S/o. Shri Iqbal Shahi Aged About 51 Years R/o. Kbt 95, Kabirnagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Admin) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryawas Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate along with Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj and Mr. Anuroop to 4 Panda, Advocates 14 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Decision
Order on Board 24.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate along with Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate along with Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Sumesh Bajaj and Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4/Nava Raipur Development Authority (hereinafter called as ‘NRDA’). 2. Since the common issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of all these writ petitions are that the petitioners are holding the substantive posts of Assistant Grade-III, Chainman, Stenographer (Hindi), Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) as well as Programmer and are posted in the office of Chief Executive Officer of the Nava Raipur Development Authority (Vikas Pradhikaran) (‘NRDA’). The petitioners were appointed after following the due process, though on contractual basis. The advertisement was issued, the petitioners participated in the selection process and thereafter on 15 the basis of merit, the petitioners were selected for the aforesaid posts and joined their duties. The petitioners though were initially appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year to three years respectively and subsequently, the said period has been extended from time to time. It is the case of the petitioners that they have worked with the Department for more than 10-17 years without any interruption as such, they have also made so many representations for regularization of their services, but till date, their representations have not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities. Further grievance of the petitioners is that insofar as the other Departments are concerned, the employees who were posted on contractual basis were considered for regularization and they have also been regularized. Hence, the present petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners in all the writ petitions would submit that the petitioners were appointed after following the due process of law i.e. after issuance of the advertisement, calling application from the candidates and with due procedure, they were appointed. He would further submits that appointments of the petitioners are neither irregular or illegal. It has been further contended that the petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service and if at this stage, they would be removed or regular appointment be made, it would be injustice as 16 they would be deprived from their right to be considered for regularization. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 to contend that the petitioners are entitled for regularization. It has been further contended that the petitioners were appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts and are duly qualified persons as well as they have completed more than 10 years of service, therefore, the question of regularization of their services ought to have been considered on merit by the respondent authorities. It has been further contended that the State Government cannot discriminate amongst the contractual employees as on the one hand, the State Government has granted approval for regularization of the contractual employees of CREDA, Chhattisgarh Samvad, Chhattisgarh State Beverage Corporation, etc. and on the other hand, instead of considering the request for regularization, the Department is going forward for filling up the post by regular appointment. Further, reliance has been placed in the matter of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 to contend that the case of the petitioners for regularization ought to have been considered especially keeping in mind that they have completed more than 10-17 years of the service. It has been lastly contended that though the petitioners cannot claim regularization as a matter of 17 right, but at the same time, the petitioners cannot be deprived from their accrued right to be considered for regularization. They also placed reliance in the matter of State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are working in the office of Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Development Authority (Vikas Pradhikaran) on contractual basis, claiming relief to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. He further submits that the petitioners are employees of the respondents/Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran and they are mainly claiming relief against Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, which is an autonomous institution having its independent legal entity, as such, no relief has been claimed against the respondent No.1/State of Chhattisgarh, is only a formal party. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that admittedly the respondents No.2 to 4 have availed the services of the petitioners on contractual basis, without there being any regular appointment over the said posts at that relevant point of time and at this juncture, the law governing the contractual appointments of the petitioners with the respondent authorities do not bind them for regularizing the services of the petitioners. He further submits that perusal of the appointment orders issued to 18 the petitioners would solidify the stand of the respondent authorities that there was absolutely no binding covenant upon them to regularize the services of the petitioners and further extension orders filed by the petitioners would bring to the notice only one fact that appointments of the petitioners were strictly on contractual and temporary basis and other Departments are having different set of Rules, which cannot be made applicable to the present petitioners as the Rules being different in nature cannot be equated with them. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and perused the documents annexed along with writ petitions. 8. From perusal of the appointment orders by which the petitioners were appointed, it is crystal clear that though the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis, but they are in continuous service since last more than 10-17 years and their contractual appointment has been extended from time to time. The petitioners are low paid employees posted as Assistant Grade-III, Chainman, Stenographer (Hindi), Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) as well as Programmer, which are basically Class-III and Class-IV posts and they are having legitimate expectation for regularization as they have completed more than 10-17 years of service, still their services are required by the respondent authorities, which is evident from their extension order issued in their favour from time 19 to time, accordingly, services of the petitioners are required by the respondents-NRDA. 9. It is not the case of the NRDA that the services of the petitioners are not at all required by the respondent authorities. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed orders in respect of regularization of the employees, in which it has been held that if the employees have completed more than 10 years of service, then they should be regularized on the post on which they are working. They cannot made fray of temporary appointment for long periods. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted a list for employees working with the respondent authorities showing their post, date of appointment, date of joining and number of years of their working, which is as follows for easy reference:- S.No. WPS No. Petitioner Post Date of Date of Number appointment Joining of Years 1. WPS 3927/2024 Arun Kumar Assistant 25.10.2012 30.07.2015 13 2. WPS 3935/2024 Manoj Kumar Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 11 Tandan Grade-III Patel 3. WPS 3936/2024 Narayan Prasad Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 14 4. WPS 3937/2024 Lokesh Kumar Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 14 Dhiwar Sahu 5. WPS 3939/2024 Mahesh Kumar Assistant 01.07.2010 03.07.2010 14 Sonkar Grade-III 6. WPS 4008/2024 Bhojraj Sahu Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 7. WPS 3989/2024 Sheikh Shahid Assistant 22.01.2011 22.02.2011 14 13 8. WPS 4009/2024 Komal Prasad Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 14 Mansuri Grade-III 9. WPS 3970/2024 Devanand Patel Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 14 Pal 20 10. WPS 3969/2024 Vedprakash Chainman 04.02.2011 04.02.2011 13 11. WPS 3973/2024 Prakash Baghel Chainman 30.03.2010 01.04.2010 Maheshwari 12. WPS 3982/2024 Rajni 13. WPS 4114/2024 Renuka Minj 14. WPS 3951/2024 Santosh Kumar Soni Stenographer (Hindi) Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) 01.02.2014 03.02.2014 14 10 04.03.2014 04.03.2014 10 30.03.2013 01.04.2013 11 15. WPS 4067/2024 Kishore Kumar Chainman 30.03.2010 03.04.2010 14 16. WPS 4064/2024 Raju Dahikar Patel 17. WPS 4266/2024 Sunil Kumar Shahi 06.03.2010 08.03.2010 14 27.08.2007 01.09.2007 17 Assistant Grade-III Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) 18. WPS 4065/2024 Satish Kumar Chainman 30.03.2010 03.04.2010 14 Yadu 19. WPS 6569/2024 Arjun Kumar Chandrakar Manager (Finance and Accounts) 24.09.2013 26.09.2013 11 20. WPS 6602/2024 Lakshmikant Programmer 26.10.2009 06.11.2009 15 Meshram 11. It is evident that the petitioners’ roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified. 12. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent 21 backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad- hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. 13. In the matter of M.L. Kesari (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing the issue with regard to regularization, has held as follows:- “5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 was rendered on 10.04.2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional 22 scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi (supra) further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [1967 (1) SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [1972 (1) SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [1979 (4) SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the 23 cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date...." 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. 24 Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (supra) casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006). 9. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without 25 the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.” 14. Further, in the matter of Vinod Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was 26 conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. 6. The application of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Umadevi (supra). 7. The judgment in the case Umadevi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have 27 been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Umadevi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in [S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128: AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507: 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of 28 orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. (emphasis in original)" 8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.” 15. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others passed in SLP(C) No.5580/2024 decided on 20.12.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 29 “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They 30 remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. 26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long- serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who 31 were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for 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. By ensuring fair employment practices, government 32 institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the Country.” 16. Considering the facts and circumstance of all the cases and in the light of aforementioned judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as further considering the factual aspect of the matters, it is apparent that temporary employees cannot be made victim of their temporary service and they are required to be considered for regularization. It is their legitimate expectation to be regularized and they cannot suffer from misuse of "Temporary" labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a shield and denial of basic rights and benefits as they are serving with the respondent authorities. 17. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties particularly the fact that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and they have completed more than 10-17 years of their services further they have filed representations before the respondent authorities ventilating their grievance for regularization, the respondent authorities i.e. respondents No.2 to 33 4/NRDA is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for regularization keeping in mind that the petitioners are working with the respondent authorities since long back and their services are still required by the respondent authorities, which is evident from their extension orders issued in favour of the petitioners. 18. In view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of each of the petitioners with respect to regularization and decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 19. With the aforementioned observation/direction, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh