Allowed¶55

Smt. Milibai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2025WPS/1982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of daily-wage Safai worker; continuity of service; reinstatement by Labour Court award; break in service objection; circular dated 05.03.2008 (Uma Devi one-time measure), Clause 3; quashing of rejection order Annexure R-4/3; Nagar Palika Parishad Kawardha, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh); Article 226; WPS; Deepali Gundu Surwase (2013) 10 SCC 324; Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Gaziabad 2025 INC 144; WPS No. 1703/2015; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:8204.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Annexure R-4/3 (order dated 17.06.2021 rejecting regularization) quashed; respondents directed to consider the petitioner's case for regularization in light of the Court's observations within four months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶55

Smt. Milibai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

What is the effect of the quashing of the termination order by the Labour Court while considering the case of the petitioner for regularisation? +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

Reinstatement pursuant to a Labour Court award operates to restore the employee to the position she held before the illegal termination, with continuity of service.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The period of about ten years spent out of service between termination and reinstatement through the Labour Court award must be counted as service for the purpose of regularization under the circular dated 05.03.2008.

¶45

Key takeaways

The order dated 17.06.2021 (Annexure R-4/3) rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization on the ground of break in service is quashed.ratio¶54
The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for regularization in light of the Court's observations within four months from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶54
Although the petitioner had not specifically challenged Annexure R-4/3, the Court moulded relief in her favour, noting that she had already rendered more than 30 years of service as a low-paid Safai Karmchari.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., 17.02.2025) allowing a writ petition under Article 226 filed by a Safai worker engaged as a daily-wage employee since 1994 with Nagar Palika Parishad, Kawardha, seeking regularization under the State circular dated 05.03.2008 issued in view of Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Her services were terminated in 1999; the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (Case No. 51/I.D. Act/2007/Ref) awarded reinstatement without back wages on 25.02.2009 and she was reinstated. Respondent No. 4 (Chief Municipal Officer) rejected her regularization claim by order dated 17.06.2021 (Annexure R-4/3) on the ground that she was out of service from 25.09.1999 to 2009 (about ten years), invoking Clause 3 of the circular. Holding, on the authority of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Division Bench ruling in WPS No. 1703/2015, and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Gaziabad, 2025 INC 144, that reinstatement restores the employee to her original position with continuity of service and that the interregnum of about ten years must be counted for regularization, the Court quashed Annexure R-4/3 and directed the respondents to consider her case for regularization within four months. Petition allowed.

2025:CGHC:8204

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1982 of 2021

¶6

Smt. Milibai Yadav W/o Kausal Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 09 Rajmahal Colony Kawardha District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department Of Rural Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Police Station - Mandir Hasaud, Atul Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Director, Directorate Of Rural Administration And Development Department, Block - D, Fourth Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Joint Director, Rural Administration And Development Department, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyers For Respondent No. 4 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

17.02.2025

¶18

The petitioner who was working as peon since 17.04.1994 has

¶19

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.03.26 18:10:38 +0530

¶20

¶21

filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming regularization in terms of circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government.

¶22

Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Safai Worker as daily wages employee in the office of respondent No. 4 Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) since 1994. Petitioner’s services were illegally terminated by the respondent in the year 1999 and the petitioner challenged the said termination before Labour Court Rajnandgaon (C.G.) which was registered as Case No. 51/I.D. Act/2007/Ref. The learned Labour Court vide its award dated 25.02.2009 has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. In pursuance of the order of the learned Labour Court, the respondent has reinstated the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner made representations for regularization on the count that once she has been reinstated by the Labour Court, therefore, her past services should be counted for all purposes including regularisation in the service.

¶23

The State Government has issued circular dated 05.03.2008 in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed for regularization of daily wages employees as one time measure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 53 and 54 has held as under:-

¶24

“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases

¶25

¶26

where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappall R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been d made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals/The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take e steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

¶27

It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.”

¶28

Thereafter, the petitioner made various representations for regularization of the service and the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 17.06.2021 has rejected the same on the count that the petitioner was out of service from 25.09.1999 to year 2009 which is about 10 years, therefore, as per the Clause 3 of the circular dated 05.03.2008 she cannot be regularized.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was reinstated by the learned Labour Court, therefore, she will be deemed to be continued for services, as such period of 10 years which have been alleged to have been treated the petitioner as not

¶30

¶31

in service, is illegal and would pray for quashing of the impugned memo.

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order would submit that there is a break in service therefore, the petitioner cannot be regularized and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶34

From the discussions made above the point emerged for determination of this Court is what will be the effect of the quashing of the termination order by the labour Court while considering the case of the petitioner for regularisation?

¶35

The word reinstatement is always subject of interpretation and adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 has considered the word reinstatement in paragraph 21 and 22 has held as under:

¶36

“21. The word "reinstatement" has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn., the word "reinstate" means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word "reinstatement" means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., the word "reinstate" means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word "reinstatement" means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word

¶37

¶38

"reinstate" means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., "reinstatement" means:

¶39

"To reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed."

¶40

The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.”

¶41

Thus, she will be restored to its original post with continuity of service. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has also examined the issue in WPS No. 1703/2015 and other connected cases and the Hon’ble Division Bench in paragarph 26 has held as under:

¶42

¶43

“26. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The question of law discussed earlier to be decided in these petitions is answered in the affirmative in favour of the petitioners-workers holding that they would not fall in the category of litigious worker and that they would be entitled for continuity of service for the period they were out of employment while they were litigating before the Labour Court.

¶44

As a consequence, the workers in those cases where the claim has been rejected by the respective Respondents on the ground of there being break in service or the claim of the workers being rejected on the ground of their not serving the Respondents prior to 31.12.1997 are all set aside/quashed. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of these petitioners-workers for regularization in accordance with the circular granting them the advantage of continuity of service from the date of their initial engagement till date.”

¶45

Thus, the effect of the reinstatement will be nothing, but restoring the employee in the position which he had held before the dismissal or removal from services. The employee will be put in the same position which he has been holding but for illegal action taken by the employer. Thus, the 10 years’ service has to be counted for the purpose of regularization. Even the petitioner in service since 1994 and more than 30 years have already been lapsed, still she has not been regularized by the respondent which clearly establishes that the post of Safai Karmchari is very much needed. The issue of long tenure of employee as daily wager has recently come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in latest judgment in the case of Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam Gaziabad reported in 2025 INC 144 wherein directions have been issued in paragraph 18 as under:-

¶46

“18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:

¶47

¶48

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

¶49

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.

¶50

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

¶51

IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”

¶52

In the light of the above legal position and also considering the law on this subject, though the petitioner has not specifically questioned the illegality and propriety of Annexure R-4/3 by which the petitioner’s claim for regularization has been rejected, but the petitioner has prayed for regularization of the service and petitioner has already rendered more than 30 years of service and she is

¶53

¶54

Safai Karmchari being low paid employee, this Court can very well mould the relief by quashing the order Annexure R-4/3 and accordingly Annexure R-4/3 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in light of the observation made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶55

With aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed.

¶56

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶57

Manish

Smt. Milibai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Milibai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Co-Operative Marketing Society Maryadit Vs Board of Revenue

Ram Prasad Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rashmita Patel Vs Vivekanand Patel

Smt. Sheela Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh