Jitendra Kumar Markam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jitendra Kumar Markam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 (Executive Engineer, PWD Dhamtari Division; Sub Division Officer, PWD Sub Division No. 2, Nagri) to consider the petitioners' claim for regularization and consequential benefits strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 90 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order, after affording due opportunity of hearing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, appointed as permanent Gangmen on compassionate basis in 2005, are entitled to consideration for regularization from 12.08.2008 with salary equivalent to regular employees and arrears, on parity with another compassionately appointed employee regularized by order dated 12.08.2008. +1 more

Court's answer

It is not in dispute that another employee who was also appointed on compassionate basis had his services regularized vide order dated 12.08.2008, whereas the claim of the petitioners for regularization has not been considered by the respondent authorities.

Ratio / Principle

The action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners' claim while extending regularization to another similarly situated employee prima facie appears arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

The writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioners' claim for regularization and consequential benefits strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 90 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶38
The concerned authorities shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing an appropriate order on their regularization claims.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service - Compassionate appointment - Regularization - Parity. Two connected writ petitions (WPS No. 220 of 2022 - Dharmendra Kumar Kunjam; WPS No. 331 of 2022 - Jitendra Kumar Markam) by permanent Gangmen of the Public Works Department, Dhamtari, appointed on compassionate basis vide orders dated 11.04.2005 and 04.05.2005, seeking regularization from 12.08.2008 on parity with another compassionately appointed employee regularized by departmental order dated 12.08.2008, with pay equivalence and arrears. State contended petitioners had no vested right and the cases were distinguishable. Held: it is not in dispute that the comparator was regularized on 12.08.2008 while the petitioners' claims remained unconsidered; such differential treatment is prima facie arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Writ petitions disposed of with direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the claims for regularization and consequential benefits strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 90 days of receipt of certified copy, after giving due opportunity of hearing. (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)

-1-

2025:CGHC:43425

NAFR

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 220 of 2022

Dharmendra Kumar Kunjam S/o Late Kawal Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Ghotgaon, Post Ghotgaon, Tahsil Nagri, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

--- Petitioner

versus

1- The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2- Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Dhamtari Division, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

3- Sub Division officer, Public Works Department Sub Division Number 2, Nagri, District Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

with

WPS No. 331 of 2022

Jitendra Kumar Markam S/o Late Shiv Kumar Aged About 37 Years Village Bishampuri, Post Podagaon, Tahsil Nagri, District-Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner

Versus

1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Dhamtari Division, Dhamtari, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

-2-

3 - Sub Division officer, Public Works Department Sub Division Number 2, Nagri Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

26.08.2025

1. The petitioner(s) have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.i. Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization from 12/8/2008 as had been done with respect to other employees and further please to direct the respondents to pay the salary equivalent to other regular employee.

ii. further please to direct the respondents to pay all arrears of pay to the petitioner with all consequential relief.

iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. ”

1. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as permanent Gangmen

on compassionate appointment vide orders dated 11.04.2005 and 04.05.2005. It is their contention that another employee, who was also appointed on compassionate basis, has been regularized by the department vide order dated 12.08.2008, but despite repeated representations, the claim of the petitioners for

regularization has not been considered till date. Hence, they seek a direction to

the respondents to consider their claim for regularization with all consequential benefits.

-3-

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners have no vested right to claim regularization. It is contended that the case of the petitioners is distinguishable from the case of the employee whose services were regularized, and therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

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

1. It is not in dispute that the another employee who was also appointed on compassionate basis, his services were regularized vide order dated 12.08.2008, but the claim of the petitioners for regularization has not been considered by the respondent authorities.

1. Prima facie, the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioners, while extending the benefit of regularization to another similarly situated employee, appears to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

1. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondents especially, respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners with regard to regularization and consequential benefits, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

1. It is expected that the authorities concerned shall provide due opportunity of

-4-

hearing to the petitioners before passing an appropriate order.

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Nadim