Dismissed¶52

Videshi Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Feb 2025WPS/2046/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi — order dated 20/02/2025 — WPS No. 2011 of 2019 & WPS No. 2046 of 2019 (common order): ex-contingency daily wages PWD employees regularised 2005/2008 denied retrospective regular pay scale, seniority and consequential benefits; delay and latches; prospective-regularisation doctrine per Thippa Setty (1998) 8 SCC 690, Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230, M. Janardhan 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298, Masood Akhtar Khan (1990) 4 SCC 24; Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 context; dismissed, no costs. Neutral citation 2025:CGHC:8837 (NAFR).

What did the court decide?

None; both petitions dismissed with no order as to cost(s). ¶52

Videshi Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both petitions dismissed with no order as to cost(s).

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, appointed as contingency daily wages employees (1980/1987) and regularised in 2005/2008, are entitled to regular pay scale, seniority and consequential benefits retrospectively from their initial date of appointment. +2 more

¶32

Court's answer

The ordinary meaning of regularisation is 'to make regular'; once an employee is regularised, the procedural infirmities which attended the appointment are cured.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the Supreme Court's ruling in Registrar General of India v. V. Thippa Setty (later approved in Union of India v. Sheela Rani), the court holds that regularisation of persons who entered as ad hoc/casual/daily-rated appointees must ordinarily take effect prospectively and not retrospectively, so that the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre is not disturbed; the point is recorded as no longer res integra.

¶41

Key takeaways

Grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules; and where the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation does not entitle the employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority (principles of M. Janardhan and Masood Akhtar Khan, the latter considering Rule 7 of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961).ratio¶50
It is not apparent from the record that the petitioners were initially appointed on the sanctioned post in accordance with the procedure applicable at that time; they were appointed as contingency daily wages employees for fixed remuneration, and in instant cases it has not been demonstrated that they were initially appointed by following the then-applicable procedure; hence no good case is found to grant them regular pay scale from the initial appointment.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order (Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, 20/02/2025) dismissing WPS No. 2011 of 2019 (Arun Kumar Gupta) and WPS No. 2046 of 2019 (Videshi Kumar Patel) — Article 226 writs by Public Works Department 'contingency daily wages employee/time keeper' hands appointed ad hoc in 1987 and 1980 against vacant posts and regularised vide Annexure-P/2 on 14.2.2005 and 21.4.2008, who sought regular pay scale, seniority and consequential benefits retrospectively from initial appointment. Held: regularisation ordinarily takes effect prospectively, not retrospectively, so as not to disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees (Registrar General of India v. V. Thippa Setty, (1998) 8 SCC 690; approved in Union of India v. Sheela Rani, (2007) 15 SCC 230); grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules, and where initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation does not confer the benefit of intervening service for seniority (M. Janardhan, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298; Masood Akhtar Khan, (1990) 4 SCC 24). Record did not show appointment on sanctioned posts per then-applicable procedure; services had been regularised (apparently in light of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1) and regular scale paid thereafter. Petitions additionally suffered unexplained delay of 14–10 years. Petitions dismissed; no order as to costs. [NAFR; 2025:CGHC:8837]

2025:CGHC:8837

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2011 of 2019

¶6

1 - Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Chandramani Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Laltanki Chowk, Bahidarpara, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur (CG)

¶10

2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur, Division District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Executive Enigneer Public Works Department, Raigarh Division District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents

¶14

WPS No. 2046 of 2019

¶15

1 - Videshi Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Narayan Lal Patel Aged About 66 Years R/o Shrawan Gali, Chandmari Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶16

--- Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretory Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur (CG)

¶19

2 - The Engineer-Inchief Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶20

3 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

¶22

4 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Raigarh Division District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶23

5 - The Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur District Bialspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents

¶24

--- Respondents

¶25

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶26

For Petitioners : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, counsel on behalf of Mr. S.K. Thomas, counsel For State/Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶27

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶28

Order On Board

¶29

20/02/2025

¶30

With the consent of both the parties heard the matter finally.

¶31

Since issue involved in both the cases is identical, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

¶32

Both the petitioners have preferred instant petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents/State that petitioners be given regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment as well as seniority and consequential benefits.

¶33

As per the case of petitioners, they were initially appointed as ‘contingency daily wages employee/time keeper’ in the years 1987 & 1980 respectively on ad-hoc basis against the vacant post under the respondent authorities but their services were not regularised till 2004. Vide order (Annexure-P/2) dated 14.2.2005 & 21.4.2008 respectively, employment of the petitioners was regularised but regular pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits were not given to them from their initial date of appointment, hence petitioners have preferred instant petitions.

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since petitioners were appointed as ‘contingency daily wages employee’ against vacant post, therefore, they ought to have been regularised and regular pay scale & other consequential benefits should have been granted to them from their initial date of appointment. He would further submit that identical issues have been decided by the State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1979/1991 as well as by this Court in W.P.(S) No.7651/2018 and W.P.(S) No.126/2019, therefore, petitioners may also be granted similar relief by allowing instant petitions.

¶36

State/respondents has filed its reply, wherein it has been pleaded that employment of the petitioners was regularised vide order (AnnexureP/2) in the years 2005 & 2008 respectively but they have filed instant petitions seeking relief of regular pay scale and seniority in the year 2019 i.e. after more than 14 - 10 years respectively. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that petitions filed by petitioners are liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and latches. In this regard, he relied in the case of Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. Thorugh its Chairman &. Managing Director vs. K. Thangappan reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 ; Shiba Shankar Mohapatra vs. State of Orissa reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 ; and State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602 He would further submit that petitioners were appointed as contingency daily wages employee without following any process, as such, they are not entitled to get regularisation or regular pay scale with retrospective effect.

¶37

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶39

Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed as contingency daily wages employee in the respondent-department. It seems that their services were regularised in the years 2005 & 2008 respectively in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . As per their regularisation order (Annexure -P/2), they were being paid regular pay scale after their regularisation.

¶40

Now, the petitioners are claiming retrospective regular pay scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. The ordinary meaning of regularisation is “to make regular” and the effect of such regularisation would depend on the object or purpose for which the regularisation is made or the stage at which it is made. Once employee regularised, the procedural infirmities which attended the appointment are cured. In instant cases, it has not been demonstrated that the petitioners were initially appointed by following procedure applicable at the time of their appointment.

¶41

The question as to whether the regularisation should be granted with retrospective effect or it should be prospective effect is no longer res integra. It has been considered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Registrar General of India & Another vs. V. Thippa Setty & Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 690 and it has been held by their Lordships that the regularization should ordinary be prospective so that seniority of those who are already in regular service is not affected and held as under :

¶42

¶43

“2. …………It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularised in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficiently long time. If the ad hoc service is regularised from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularisation must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. It must also be borne in mind that ad hoc appointees, casual labour and daily-rated persons are not subject to strict discipline of service and it is a matter of common experience that their attendance is very often not regular and at times they do not even meet the qualification for appointment since they are taken on ad hoc basis. These deficiencies are overlooked by way of granting of relaxation and, therefore, care must be taken to see that they do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularisation should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked. The Tribunal must take care to see that when they pass orders of regularisation from retrospective dates, those who are likely to be affected on account of that order are not before that court and unwittingly their careers are not adversely affected. Ordinarily, therefore, the regularisation must be prospective.”

¶44

Similarly, in Union of India & Others v. Sheela Rani reported in (2007) 15 SCC 230 , the principles of law laid down in V. Thippa Setty (supra)

¶45

¶46

has been followed by the Supreme Court with approval and held in para 11 as under :

¶47

“11. In Registrar General of India & Anr. Vs. V. Thippa Setty & Ors. (supra), the Tribunal's direction was to regularize the respondents w.e.f. the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment depending on the seniority list. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11.5.1985, the regularization was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19.2.1993, the Tribunal had directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status w.e.f. 5.2.1981 i.e. the date of their entry into service as Investigators. This Court held that the employees had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether they should be regularized in service since they had worked as ad hoc employees for a sufficient long time. If the ad hoc service is regularized from the back date in this manner, it will disturb the seniority of regularly appointed employees in the cadre and, therefore, ordinarily the regularization must take effect prospectively and not retrospectively. This Court ordered that care must be taken to see that regularization do not upset the seniorities of regular appointees. Whether they qualify in a given case or not is not relevant but what is relevant is that regularization should be prospective and not retrospective as the chances of their upsetting the seniorities cannot be overlooked.”

¶48

In the matter of M. Janardhan & Others v. State of A.P. & Others reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 298 it has been held by their Lordships

¶49

¶50

that the grant of retrospective regularisation must be traceable to Rules. In the matter of Masood Akhtar Khan & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (1990) 4 SCC 24 considering the Rules of M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, Rule 7, it has been held relying upon the earlier decisions that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation of his service does not entitle an employee to the benefit of intervening service for seniority.

¶51

Reverting to the cases in hand, it is not apparent from the record that petitioners were initially appointed on the sanctioned post in accordance with the procedure applicable at that time. They were appointed as contingency daily wages employee for fixed remuneration. As has been stated earlier that it seems that they were regularised in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Since no good cases of petitioners are found to grant them regular pay scale from the initial appointment and further instant petitions have been filed after huge delay of more than 14 – 10 years, as such, I do not find any good ground to allow these petitions.

¶52

In view of above discussion, petitions fail, as such, the same are dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Rukhsar

¶57

RUKHSARBANO Digitallysigned byRUKHSARBANODate:2025.02.2115:58:48+0530

Videshi Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Videshi Kumar Patel 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

Smt. Sita Devi Vs Ramavtar

Smt. Purnima Sahu Vs Sevaram Sahu

Smt. Sangeeta Dewangan Vs Murari Lal Dewangan

Branch Manager, Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited Vs Hriprasad Yadav

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Kumar Dubey Vs Smt. Nisha Sharma