Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.20 10:20:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:41685-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 617 of 2025 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Hasaud, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter, Jail Road, Arenya Bhawan, Medical College Road, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5 The Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh Forest Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus Ghanshyam Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Sukhdev Prasad, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Changurda, Post- Itar, Thana- Gatapar, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant/ State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shashank Thakur,Dy. A.G. For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.08.2025 1. The appellant/respondent in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4088 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the writ petitioner in WPS No. 4088 of 2020 is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Watchman / Chowkidar on daily wage basis in the office of Divisional Forest Office Division Khairagarh in the year 1989. Further, he was discontinued as daily wage employee on 2007 by oral instruction. Discontinuation of engagement of petitioner as daily wage employee was challenged before Labour Court Case by the petitioner and the same was allowed vide award dated 30.05.2012 and he was directed to be reinstated in service without back-wages. Petitioner, thereafter, is continuously working with respondents. Earlier, petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing 3
Decision
WP.S. No.7874 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2018 directing respondents to consider case of petitioner for regularization in the light of the award of Labour Court dated 30.05.2012 as also the order of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh which is an order dated 16.05.2017 passed in W.P.S. No. 1703 of 2015. Initially, when claim of petitioner was considered, he was found eligible for regularization in service upon assessment by Divisional Forest Officer. When even after receipt of report, petitioner was not regularized in service, he filed a contempt petition and only because of filing of contempt petition against higher officials, subsequently claim of petitioner was rejected by order dated 25.11.2019 and while rejecting claim for regularization of petitioner, respondents have opined that petitioner has not completed ten years of service and he was not engaged against sanctioned and vacant post which is contrary to the facts of the case, order of Labour Court dated 30.05.2012 and further in contravention of Circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by State Government for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee working in the Departments of State Government. Petitioner from the date of reinstatement is continuously working. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 4 “ 11. Considering aforementioned facts of the case and discussion made above as also decision in case of Tukaram (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, respondent No. 5 committed error of law in rejecting claim of regularization of petitioner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, order dated 26.11.2019 (Annexure-P/8) is quashed. 12. Undisputedly, petitioner, till date, is continuously working for the work on which he is engaged as daily wage employee and therefore, in the aforementioned facts of the case, respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner for regularization in accordance with Circular dated 05.03.2008 granting him advantage of continuity of service from date of his initial engagement till date, subject to verifying facts. Let exercise of regularization be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in above terms. “ 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ respondent in writ petitioner with the prayer that the writ petitioner/ respondent herein does not fulfill the requisite eligibility as provided and accordingly his candidature was rejected which is just and proper and learned 5 Single Judge has erred by allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent herein. 5. Learned counsel for the State/ appellant submits that though the respondent herein was initially engaged in the year 1989, however, his services were discontinued in the year 2007 and as per order Labour Court dated 30.05.2012, he was reinstated only in the year 2012 and therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of issuance of Circular dated 05.03.2008, respondent herein has completed ten years of service. He further contended that benefit of Circular is to be given only to the person who were engaged prior to 1997 and have completed ten years of service. He also contended that specific reason has been assigned by the competent authority for not adverting to the claim of respondent herein for regularization on the ground that he was not engaged against sanctioned and vacant post. He further submits that case of the respondent herein was duly verified in terms of circular for regularization dated 05.03.2008, and it was found that the respondent do not fulfill the requisite eligibility as provided and his candidaature was rejected. He further submits that Learned Single Judge has committed error in granting the respondent herein the advantage of continuity of service from date of his initial engagement till date. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and cannot be 6 sustained and needs to be set aside and the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available in the record. 7. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition that when there is an order of competent Court for reinstating service of respondent, he was reinstated, it will have its effect that respondent continued in service since initial date of his engagement i.e. from the year 1989 unless otherwise specified. Further, State Government has issued Circular dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of service of daily wage employee / temporary employee and under Clause B, it is mentioned that regularization of an employee engaged in between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 as daily wage / temporary employee. In the said Circular, under Clause 2 (VII) wherein it is specifically provided that regularization be made against sanctioned and vacant post and it further mentions that wherever in the Department it is required, supernumerary post be created. Clause 2 (VII) is extracted below for ready reference: (viii) नि(cid:2)यमि(cid:5)नि(cid:6)करण स्वी(cid:12)क(cid:13) (cid:6) एवी(cid:15) रिरक्(cid:6) पद पर ही(cid:12) निकय(cid:21) जा(cid:21)एगा(cid:21)। इस ही(cid:27)(cid:6)(cid:28) जिजा(cid:2) निवीभा(cid:21)गा(cid:31) (cid:5) आवीश्यक ही# वीही(cid:21)(cid:15) स(cid:21)(cid:15)ख्य(cid:27)(cid:6)र पद नि(cid:2)ኌ(cid:5)&(cid:6) निकय(cid:27) जा(cid:21)य । यदिद पद ही(cid:12) कले(cid:27)क्टर दर पर स्वी(cid:12)क(cid:13) (cid:6) ही# (cid:6)# स्वी(cid:12)क(cid:13) (cid:6) पद(cid:31) (द*नि(cid:2)क 7 वी(cid:27)(cid:6)(cid:2) पर) क# नि(cid:2)यमि(cid:5)(cid:6) वी(cid:27)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:21)(cid:2) (cid:5) परिरवीቔኌ(cid:6)&(cid:6) (स(cid:28)जिजा(cid:6)) कर(cid:2)(cid:21) ही#गा(cid:21)।" 8. While rejecting claim of respondent, Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 25.11.2019 erred in rejecting claim of respondent observing that respondent was discontinued from service in the year 2007 and he has not continuously worked for a period of ten years and further that he has not worked against sanctioned and vacant post said observation / reason assigned for rejecting claim for regularization of respondent is contrary to the order passed by Labour Court wherein respondent has been reinstated which is having effect of reinstating in service from initial date of his appointment and further is in contravention of specific Clause under Circular dated 05.03.2008 as extracted above. 9. Further the Division Bench of this Court while considering almost identical issue in case of Tukaram (supra) has observed that the effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of discontinuance never existed. It was also observed that the litigious worker would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigation before the Labour Court. 10. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 8 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib