Parmeshwar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:55241

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2677 of 2023

¶7

1 - Parmeshwar Sahu S/o Late Shri Devnath Sahu Aged About 42 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Bhatalikhurd, Tah - And Distt. Mungeli, At Present Chingrajpara, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Adminstration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Joint Director Department Of Urban Adminstration And Development, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. ManojKumar Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	:	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A.
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate.

¶14

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

2

12/11/2025

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases.

¶21

10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to send and forward the name of the petitioner along with other employees for regularizing of their service within stipulated period.

¶22

10.3 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to grant minimum pay scale to the petitioners as the provision of Minimum Wages Act 1948, until he regularized in the department.

¶23

10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.

¶24

10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner was appointed in the year 2000 as a daily wage employee in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, and has been continuously working under the respondent department since then. As per the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government, the respondent authorities were required to take steps, as a one-time measure, to regularize the services of those employees who had

¶26

3

¶27

completed ten years of service on duly sanctioned civil posts. Accordingly, the petitioner became entitled to regularization under the said circular. A similar matter has already been decided by this Hon’ble Court, wherein directions were issued to the respondent authorities to consider and scrutinize the cases of all eligible individuals as per rules. The respondents, under the Right to Information Act, issued a list on 19.07.2022 of daily wage employees working under the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No. 167, indicating his first appointment in the year 2000 as a “Mali” under Respondent No. 3. It is respectfully submitted that there has been no break in the petitioner’s service, and he has been continuously working on his post for the past 23 years. In the year 2022, Respondent No. 3 forwarded the details of daily wage employees to the Government for the purpose of regularization; however, the petitioner’s name was omitted, while the names of his juniors were included and sent to the Government. Aggrieved by this omission, the petitioner submitted a representation on 22.02.2023 to the respondent authority, requesting that his name be included in the list of employees whose names had been forwarded for regularization, stating that he has been serving as a daily wage employee (Gardener) in the Horticulture Department of the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur since 2000, and that the names of 324 employees had already been sent for regularization, except his. The petitioner, therefore, requested that his name also be

¶28

4

¶29

forwarded to the Government for regularization in accordance with law.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the judgment in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , petitioner is entitled to be regularized, however, the respondents are not considering the case of petitioner for regularization. The State Government, on the basis of decision in Umadevi’s case (supra), has also issued a circular dated 05.03.2008 according to which petitioner is required to be regularised. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others , reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 and in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 , in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the persons, who are in continuous service for more than 10 years, are required to be regularised and for that, the benefit of one time recruitment could not come into the way. Hence, he submits that this is the fit case where direction can be issued to respondents for regularization of service of the petitioner.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in each and every case regularization cannot be granted and it has to be seen whether person concerned has been recruited or appointed on the vacant post or not and whether he is on regular

¶32

5

¶33

service or not.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition.

¶35

The State Government, on the basis of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Umadevi (supra) , which dealt with the question of regularization of back-door entrants in Government service, has issued the Circular dated 05.03.2008 in which it has been categorically mentioned that the persons, who are in service for last 10 years, are required to be regularized.

¶36

Recently, in case of Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 , while considering the entitlement of temporary employees to regularization in service, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-

¶37

7. The judgment in Umadevi (3) [ State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Para 53 of Umadevi (3) case [ State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is reproduced

¶38

6

¶39

hereunder : (SCC p. 42).

¶40

“ 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23] , R.N. Nanjundappa [ R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [ B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been 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 steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly

¶41

7

¶42

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.” (emphasis in original)

¶43

8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations.

¶44

9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment

¶45

[ Vinod Kumar v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2016

¶46

8

¶47

SCC OnLine All 4489] of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularisation in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularisation within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.”

¶48

In the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the persons in regular service for more than 10 years are required to be regularized. Relevant portion of Jaggo (supra) is extracted below for ready reference:-

¶49

“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a

¶50

9

¶51

scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:

¶52

“ 6. The application of the judgment in Uma

¶53

Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

¶54

10

¶55

7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”

¶56

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment :

¶57

continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

¶58

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a

¶59

11

¶60

broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

¶61

23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.

¶62

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of

¶63

12

¶64

Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

¶65

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. T hese practices manifest in several ways:

¶66

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels : Employees

¶67

13

¶68

engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

¶69

• Arbitrary Termination : Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

¶70

• Lack of Career Progression : Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

¶71

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles

¶72

14

¶73

performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

¶74

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

¶75

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-

¶76

15

¶77

time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and

¶78

16

¶79

fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”

¶80

Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, this writ petition at this stage is disposed off with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in service in accordance with law expeditiously, keeping in mind the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and Jaggo (supra) as also the Circular issued by the State Government in this regard. The said exercise be done within a period of three months from the date of production of this order.

¶81

Sd/-

¶82

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶83

Raghu Jat

Parmeshwar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Sahu 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

Ramkapur Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khileshwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Saroj Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Kumar Baghel (Wrongly mention as Lokesh) Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Chitrakant Kurre