Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Raju Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2025.08.05
14:57:22 +0530
2025:CGHC:38295
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8324 of 2025
1 - Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Raju Ram S/o Dhaniram Yadav Aged About 59 Years R/o 49,
Danteshwari Ward, Behind Kanihya Kirana Store, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
2 - Laxminath Yadav S/o Gagra Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Khaspara, Darbha, District-
Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Secretary General Administartion Department (G.A.D.), Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Secretary Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Nava Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
4 - E.N.C. Of Public Health Engineering Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Chief Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Circle - Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar
(C.G.)
6 - Superintendent Engineer Of Public Health Engineering Circle Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur,
District- Bastar (C.G.)
7 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Division - Jagdalpur, Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar (C.G.)
8 - Assistant Engineer Phe Department, Sub Division No. Ii, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
9 - Collector Jagdalpur Collectorate Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.)
...Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Shri Santosh Bharat, PL
——————————————————————————————————————
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
04.08.2025
1. By the present petition, petitioners are seeking a direction towards the
respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners on the post of
Wps 8324 of 2025
2
Handpump Sudharak, pursuant to the Circular dated 05.03.2008 from the date when
the similarly situated persons have been regularized.
2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioners are presently working on the
post of Handpump Sudharak in department of respondent as Daily Wage employees,
and have completed more than 30 years of service. Petitioners are having all the
requisite qualifications for holding the post of Handpump Sudharak. Petitioners had
submitted their detailed representation to the respondent authorities for considering
their case for regular appointment on the post of Handpump Sudharak, as they had
already completed more than 30 years of service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit 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. Petitioners are Daily Wage employees since long. He would further submit
that the State Government has regularized the services of similarly situated
employees on the basis of Circular dated 05.03.2008, therefore, the petitioners are
also entitled for regularization of their services on the post of Handpump Sudharak.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed by
this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (WPS-
4293 of 2012) decided on 10.02.2023.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose
the contention of the counsel for the petitioners.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on
record.
Wps 8324 of 2025
3
6. Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, and others Vs
the State of Jharkhand, and others Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018, decided
on 01.08.2018, held in para 11 of its judgment:
“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. 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 others similarly situated employees
when their services were regularized. If the case of the petitioners is also found to
be similar to those daily wagers, whose services were regularized, they 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/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
JUDGE
padma