Khem Lal Sahu S/o Shri Dhiraji Ram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8915 of 2019 Khem Lal Sahu S/o Shri Dhiraji Ram Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village House No. 164, Ward No. 8 Sath Para, Rengadabari, Tahsil Doundi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Balod / Chairman Scrutiny Committee Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 8943 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
Kanti Bai W/o Shri Ramchand Aged About 48 Years R/o Village 259 Indira Nagar Ward No. 27 Dalli Rajhara, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balod District Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Balod / Chairman Scrutiny Committee Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.01 14:41:37 +0530 2 WPS No. 8930 of 2019 Kunwar Singh S/o Shri Umend Das Aged About 48 Years R/o Forest Range Office Dallirajhara, At Present Working At Vanopaj Janch Naka Hitkasa Barrier Dalli Rajhara, Tahsil Doundi, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balod / Chairman Scrutiny Committee Balod District - Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 8939 of 2019 Puran Lal S/o Shri Jhariyar Aged About 52 Years At Present Working Place Office Of Assistant Range Office Dhorrithema, Post Doundi, Tahsil Doundi, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest, Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg, Circle Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balod / Chairman Scrutiny Committee Balod District - Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. FS Khare, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer 3 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 28.8.2025 1. Since the issue involved in all the four writ petitions is similar, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. Instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been preferred by respective petitioners seeking quashment of Annexure-P/1 (in all writ petitions) passed by respondent No.4/Divisional Forest Officer, Balod, Distt. Balod and for their regularization in service. [For the sake of convenience, WPS No. 8915/2019 would be taken-up as lead case] 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee in the Forest Department on 01.01.1991. Subsequently he was removed from service on 28.02.2000, but was reinstated in compliance of Order/award dated 09.12.2009 passed by Labour Court, Durg and joined his service on 06.4.2010. Despite long period of service, employment of the petitioner was not regularised, therefore, the petitioner filed WPS No.1313/2018 (Annexure-P/3), wherein this Court had ordered the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. In compliance of the order passed by the High Court, case of the petitioner was considered by respondent No.4 and vide Order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure-P/4), his regularization was declined, holding therein that since the petitioner was not in continuous service and further he was not appointed against any vacant post, therefore, he is not entitled to get regularized. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed WPS No.8545/2018, wherein this Court quashed the order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure-P/4) and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Tukaram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No.1703/2015. Thereafter, case of the petitioner was again considered by respondent No.4, however, they refused to regularize the service of the petitioner, only on the ground that he has not passed Class V 4 examination, otherwise he is entitled for regularization, therefore, the petitioner has filed instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner was continuously working with respondent department as daily wage employee right from 1991 to 2000 and after his reinstatement in service, i.e. 06.4.2010 till date, as such, he is entitled to get regularization of service, which has also been considered by respondent No.4 in impugned Order dated 20.8.2019 (Annexure-P/1), but he has been declined to be regularized only on the ground that he has not passed Class-V examination. Learned counsel referring to Annexure-P/6 and list of Peon/Choukidar appointed as daily wage employees after 31.12.1997 would submit that, seven of the daily wages employees, namely Aasharam Ghosi has passed only Class-IV examination, Smt. Ramsiya Bai is illiterate, Basant Gond has passed only Class-I examination, Rameshewar Vishwakarma has passed only Class-II examination, Kanhiaya Yadav has passed only Class IV examination, Jaigovind has passed only Class-IV examination and Smt. Bhagvati Bai is literate only. In spite of that, they have been regularized since 30.8.2008, whereas the petitioners have passed examinations of Class-IV, Class-II, Class-III, Class-IV respectively, yet they have not been regularized. This discrimination adopted by the respondents department is completely illegal, hence, it is prayed that the petitions may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to regularize the petitioners in their service. While making submission, learned counsel for the petitioners also referred the rejoinder filed by him. 5. The State has filed reply. Learned counsel for the State referring to its reply would submit that as per the instructions issued by the General Administration Department and Chhattisgarh Forest (Headquarter & Field) Class IV Service Recruitment Rules, 2009 (for short ‘the Rules 2009’), it is necessary to pass the Class V examination for regularization of daily wage employees. But since the petitioners have not passed Class V examination, therefore, they are not entitled to get regularization. However, he further submits that otherwise, they were eligible 5 for getting regularization of their service. He further submits that the respondents department has considered the instructions issued by GAD and the Rules 2009, therefore, the petitions are liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioners have been working as daily wages employees since 1991, 1991, 1992 & 1990 respectively. Though they were removed from service in the year 2000, subsequently, in compliance with the order of the Labour Court, they were reinstated in service in 2010 and since then they have been continuously working in the respondent department. Since the petitioners have been working in the respondent department for so long period till date, except some break in service for a few years, therefore, they are entitled to get regularization of their service, but they have been denied regularization as they have not passed Class V examination. Perusal of the rejoinder filed by the petitioners shows that seven daily wages employees, who have not passed Class-V examination and even one of them is illiterate, have been regularized in service, which has been mentioned in rejoinder as under:- Sr. No. Name Qualification 1. Aasharam Ghosi 2. Smt. Ramsiya Bai 3. Basant Gond 4. Rameshwar Vishwakarma 5. Kanhaiya Yadav 6. Jaigovind 7. Smt. Bhagvati Bai 4th Pass Illiterate 1st Pass 2nd Pass 4th Pass 4th PaSS Literate Appointed as daily wages employee 1990 1990 1992 1994 1996 1996 1997 Regularization order date 30.08.2008 30.08.2008 30.08.2008 30.08.2008 30.08.2008 30.08.2008 30.08.2008 Aforesaid facts also get support from Annexure-P/6 dated 30.8.2008 and list of Peon/Choukidar appointed as daily wage employees after 31.8.1988, which shows that the persons mentioned above have not passed Class V examination and some of them are also only literate. The petitioners are poor labourers working in the respondent department for a long time. They should not have been deprived of regularization of their service only because they have not passed Class V 6 examination, while, other daily wage employees, who have not passed Class V examination, have been regularized by the respondent department. Such discrimination is highly condemnable, particularly considering the fact that the petitioners are poor labourers. 8. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, (2024) 9 SCC 327, and Jaggo v. Union of India and others, (2024) SCC Online SC 3826, has held as under:- “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 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.” 9.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Apex Court, these writ petitions are allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with Circular dated 05.3.2008 granting him/them advantage of continuity of service from the date of initial engagement till date, subject to verifying the facts. Let this exercise of regularization be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt/ submission of copy of this order. 10. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in above terms. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini