Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:1536 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 7245 of 2018 Jaipal Singh Kanwar S/o Chandan Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Post Nevsa, Village Nawapara, Tahsil Pendra, Road, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgrh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Conservator of Forest Bilaspur Circle, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgrh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Divisional Forest officer Marwahi Division, Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur, ... Respondent(s) Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.01.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon,ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and further be please to issue appropriate writ order or direction, directing the -2- respondent authority to pass appropriate order in respect of the regularization of the petitioner as daily wage employee with all consequential service benefits. 10.2 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee under the respondent department as a Chowkidar at Chuktipani, Amanaka, Forest Division Marwahi, in the year 1983. He further submits that the petitioner is still working on the same post. It is contended that the petitioner moved an application for regularization of his services and when no heed was paid, he preferred a Writ Petition (WPS No. 2682 of 2018), seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services. He contends that in WPS No. 2682 of 2018, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities and in turn, the authorities concerned were directed to consider it in accordance with the circular dated 05.03.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation along with a copy of the order passed in WPS No. 2682/2018 before respondent No. 3 on 26.08.2018, for regularization of his services according to the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government. He further submits that respondent No. 3 vide order dated 07.07.2018 rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that there was a break in service for more than one month in a particular year. Therefore, the petitioner was not found entitled to regularization. He argues that respondent No. 3 misconstrued the circular dated -3- 05.03.2008. He also submits that as the petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee prior to 1988, the first part (अ) of the circular would apply to the case of the petitioner, whereas his representation was rejected applying the second part (ब) of the circular. According to part (अ), daily-wage employees appointed prior to 1988, their services have to be regularized and if no post is available, the State is required to create a post. He would further submit that otherwise also the petitioner has worked for more than 10 years in the department, thus, he prays that the order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 07.07.2018 (Annexure P/1) may be quashed. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by Mr. Chaturvedi and submits that the circular cannot be read in part. He argues that part (अ) must be read along with clauses 2, 3, and 4 of the circular dated 05.03.2008. He further submits that as there was a break in service, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rightly rejected by respondent No. 3. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was no break in service. He also submits that a committee was constituted to inquire into the matter, and it was found that the petitioner did not work continuously from 1988 till the date of consideration of his claim for regularization; thus, he contends that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5) In the matter of Ramji and others v. and State of Chhattisgarh and others -4- passed in WPS No. 5490 of 2020 dated 03.12.2024, it has been held that where the daily rated employees were appointed prior to 31.12.1988, in such a condition, the respondent authorities should consider the claim of such employees according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008 which says that “the employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 would be appointed against posts of work-charged and contingency paid employees or as regular employees in the department.” The relevant para-6 is reproduced as under:- “6. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and the respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioners according to the first part of the circular dated 05.03.2008 which says that “the employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 would be appointed against posts of work-charged and contingency paid employees or as regular employees in the department.” It further says that “if posts are not available, supernumerary posts will be created.” The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that posts are not vacant. It appears that the authority concerned rejected the claim of the petitioners according to the second part of the circular dated 05.03.2008; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities with regard to the rejection of the claim of the petitioners for regularization appears to be erroneous. It is stated in the return filed by the State that the services of some of the daily-rated employees were regularized. The respondents in their return have not assigned reasons as to why the claim of the petitioners for regularization was not considered, whereas the claim of some daily-rated employees was considered by the respondent authorities.”
Decision
6) As pleaded in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a daily-rated employee in the forest department in 1983. The petitioner moved an application for the regularization of his services, and when no action was taken, he filed WPS -5- No. 2682/2018, wherein liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities and in turn, the authority concerned was directed to decide the matter strictly in accordance with the circular dated 05.03.2008. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation along with a copy of the order passed in WPS No. 2682/2018. The matter was referred to a committee, which inquired into the matter and found that there were breaks in the service during the years 2001 to 2003 and 2009 to 2010, therefore, as per clause 2(iii) of the circular dated 05.03.2008, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected. 7) In the present case, the petitioner was appointed to the post of a daily-rated employee prior to 1988 but his claim was rejected according to the second part of the circular dated 5.3.2008 on the ground that there were breaks in the service from 2001 to 2003 and 2009 to 2010. In the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 3 wrongly applied the second part of the circular dated 05.03.2008 while considering the case of the petitioner for regularization. 8) Taking into consideration the part (अ) of the circular dated 05.03.2008, observation made in Ramji (supra), and the facts discussed above, the order passed by respondent No. 3 on 07.07.2018 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby quashed. 9) Respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for regularization afresh in light of the observations made herein above, particularly the provisions contained in part (अ) of the circular dated 05.03.2008. The entire exercise shall be -6- completed by respondent No. 3 within a period of 120 days from today. 10) Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim