Lekh Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Lekh Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025

                                                         1




                                                                      2025:CGHC:20613


                                                                                    NAFR

                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                             WPS No. 3156 of 2025



                    1 - Lekh Ram Sahu S/o Khorbehra Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years
       Digitally
       signed by
       SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
                    Working As Driver, R/o Near Ranu Kirana Shop, Ward No. 5, Tifra,
       2025.05.07
       16:18:30
       +0530

                    Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                            ... Petitioner(s)



                                                       versus



                    1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public

                    Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur

                    Chhattisgarh



                    2 - Engineer-In-Chief Department Of Public Works, Naya Raipur, District -

                    Raipur Chhattisgarh



                    3 - Chief Engineer Department Of Public Works, Bilaspur Zone, Bilaspur,

                    District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                           2




4 - Superintendent Engineer Department Of Public Works, Bilaspur

Division,     Bilaspur,        District       -   Bilaspur,      Chhattisgarh



5 - Executive Engineer Department Of Public Works, Division No. 2,

Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh



6 - Sub Divisional Officer Department Of Public Works, Sub Division -

Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                         ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Amishan Hussain, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
06.05.2025

1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards

the respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioner

on the post of Driver pursuant to the circular dated 05.03.2008 from

the date when the similarly situated persons have been regularized.

2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently

working on the post of Driver in department of respondent as daily

wager and has completed more than one and a half decade. The

petitioner is having all the requisite qualifications for holding the said
3

post. The petitioner had submitted his detailed representation to the

respondent authorities for considering his case for regular

appointment as he had already completed more than one and a half

decade

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part

of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in

nature and also violative of the principles of natural justice and

Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a

daily wager since long. He would further submit that the State

government has regularized the services of similarly situated daily

wage employees on the basis of circular dated 05/03/2008,

therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for regularization of his

services on the post of Computer Operator. In support of his

contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by

this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of

Chhattisgarh1

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State would

oppose the contention of the counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari

and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2 held in para

11 as under:

1 WPS No. 4293 of 2012 (decided on 10/02/2023

2 Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429 of 2018 (decided on 01/08/2018)
4

“11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the
Regularization Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation
and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service
on the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules, ought
to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they
have completed 10 years of service they should be
regularized unless there is some valid objection to their
regularization like misconduct etc.”

7. The petitioner submits that similarly situated person has been

regularized on the same department and the petitioner has

submitted a representation with proof before the said authority.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the

petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to

inspect the records of other similarly situated employees when their

services were regularized. If the case of the petitioner is also found

to be similar to those employees whose services were regularized,

his services be also regularized from the same date. It is also

directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of 60

days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge

Shoaib