Shailesh Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:10988-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.03 18:41:58 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 134 of 2026

¶6

1 - Shailesh Dewangan S/o Shri Dashrath Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Koshtapara, Dhamtari Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶7

2 - Ajay Dewangan S/o Shri Dashrath Dewangan Aged About 40 Years R/o Koshtapara, Dhamtari Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶8

3 - Tribhuvan Yadav S/o Shri Kumar Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Jalampur, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶9

4 - Teeju Nishad S/o Shri Vishram Nishad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Soram, Tah And Dist Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶10

5 - Madhav S/o Shri Sudhakar Rao Aged About 34 Years R/o Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶11

6 - Narottam S/o Shri Mohan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chidoud Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶12

7 - Agesar S/o Samaru Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward Badena Jail Road Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶13

2

¶14

8 - Santu Patel S/o Pusau Aged About 36 Years R/o Nandi Chowk, Bedharapara, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶15

9 - Sanjay Yadav S/o Ashok Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Ramsagarpara, Dhamtari Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶16

10 - Bharat Sahu S/o Munnalal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ramsagarpara,tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶17

11 - Shyam S/o Sher Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Rampur Ward, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶18

12 - Ram Singh S/o Balbir Singh Thakur Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Sai Mandir, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶19

--- Appellant (s)

¶20

versus

¶21

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶22

2 - Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari Through Its Commissioner Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

¶23

3 - Anuj Gupta (Now Dead) Nill

¶24

4 - Kumar S/o Nammu Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Nandi Chowk Bedharapara Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶25

--- Respondent(s)

¶26

3

¶27

WA No. 141 of 2026

¶28

1 - Naresh Sonkar S/o Shri Indal Sonkar, Aged About 45 Years R/o Kumharapara, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶29

2 - Dinesh Sarthi, S/o Shri Faaguram Sarthi, Aged About 38 Years R/o Brahmanpara, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶30

3 - Jaikumar Sarthi, S/o Shri Jagdish Sarthi, Aged About 41 Years R/o Sarthimohalla, Ganesh Chowk, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶31

4 - Prakash Sahu, S/o Shri Pardeshi Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Daanitola, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶32

5 - Raghuveer Singh S/o Shri Rikhan Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Koshtapara, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶33

6 - Mithun Dhimar, S/o Shri Mangluram Dhimar, Aged About 28 Years Ward Jaalampur, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶34

7 - Vijay Kumar Devdas, S/o Shri Jugeshar Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sorabh-Bhatagaon Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶35

8 - Bhanupratap Sinha, S/o Chandulal Sinha, Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward Sorid, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶36

9 - Jairam Sahu, S/o Ramadhar Sahu, Aged About 36 Years Bajrang Chowk, Village Soram, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶37

10 - Devlal Sahu, S/o Santram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Boddrakasahi, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶38

4

¶39

11 - Sia-Ram Sahu, S/o Ramadhar Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Village Soram, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶40

12 - Manharan Nirmalkar, S/o Maansingh Aged About 44 Years R/o Jailroad Bathena, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶41

13 - Remeshwar, S/o Kartikram, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhothali, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶42

14 - Parsuram, Jhaaduram Yadaw, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Sorambaada, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶43

--- Appellant (s)

¶44

Versus

¶45

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶46

2 - Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari Through Its Coommissioner, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

¶47

3 - State Urban Development Authority Chhattisgarh, 4th Floor, D- Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Executive Officer., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶48

--- Respondent(s)

¶49

For Appellant (s)	: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate appeared through virtual mode along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate
For Respondent / State	: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General

¶50

5

¶51

For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate

¶52

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶53

Order on Board

¶54

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶55

03.03.2026

¶56

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the Respondent/ State and Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in both the writ appeals.

¶57

2. The present writ appeals have been filed by the writ appellants against the order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the WPS No. 2802/2015 with the following prayer:-

¶58

“ It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant writ appeal and quash and set aside the impugned the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge (Annexure-WA/1) in WPS 2802/2015 and grant reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, in the interest of justice.”

¶59

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who are duly qualified individuals, were initially appointed on daily wage basis and are presently working in the Municipal Council, Dhamtari. They have continuously worked for more than 240 days in each year without any break in service and without any complaint regarding their performance, a fact acknowledged by the Chief

¶60

6

¶61

Municipal Officer and other authorities. Although appointed as Class IV daily wage employees, they were assigned clerical and multifarious administrative duties, including work in enforcement squads under the Collector, in view of their qualifications and efficiency. The appellants contend that despite availability of at least 29 vacant Class IV posts for direct recruitment, their cases have not been considered for regularization. Instead, the respondents allegedly began treating them as contractual labourers without their consent, paying them monthly wages lower than the minimum wages fixed by the Collector, and issued a notice/advertisement dated 21.04.2015 inviting placement agencies/labour contractors to supply labour in their place, which they challenge along with the circular dated 31.03.2015 and order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the Mayor-in-Council. Thereafter, the the present appellants has filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge of this Court for quashment of notice/ advertisement dated 21.04.2015 and also for directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellants for regularization on appropriate posts. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, against which the present writ appeals has been filed.

¶62

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 26.09.2025, without properly appreciating that the appellants are duly qualified,

¶63

7

¶64

experienced and have rendered continuous service for nearly 15 years, thereby acquiring at least a legitimate expectation and a vested right of fair consideration for regularization against the available Class IV posts. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondents, without examining the appellants’ case, arbitrarily issued the impugned notice/advertisement inviting placement agencies for supply of labour for the very same works which the appellants are already performing efficiently and at substantially lower cost, and that induction of contractors would not only defeat administrative efficiency but also cause unnecessary burden on the public exchequer by adding contractor’s profit margins.

¶65

5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that, in compliance with the Court’s order dated 27.02.2026, he has served a copy of the affidavit upon the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶66

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶67

7. The affidavit dated 01.03.2026 filed by Respondent No. 2, wherein the Respondent No. 2/Municipal Corporation has affirmed the contents of paragraphs 8 to 11, is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶68

That, the answering Respondent has taken note of the aforesaid orders dated 27.02.2026 and 28.02.2026 and is

¶69

8

¶70

ready and willing to comply with the same in letter and spirit.

¶71

That, in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the appellants/petitioners shall be permitted to continue to work on their respective posts as they were working prior to the issuance of the impugned notice/advertisement dated 21.04.2015.

¶72

That, out of the 28 employees concerned, one has passed away and his wife has been provided compassionate appointment; one has retired; and one has resigned from service. The remaining 25 employees are still working in the office of the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, on their respective posts.

¶73

That, the answering Respondent assures this Hon'ble Court that necessary administrative steps shall be taken forthwith to ensure implementation of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court.

¶74

8. Having considered the affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 /Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, sworn by the Commissioner in compliance with the orders dated 27.02.2026 and 28.02.2026 passed by this Court, and taking note of the categorical statement that the appellants/petitioners shall be permitted to continue on their respective posts as they were working prior to issuance of the impugned notice/advertisement dated 21.04.2015, this Court

¶75

9

¶76

is of the view that the primary grievance raised in the present writ appeal stands substantially addressed at this stage. The affidavit further clarifies that out of 28 employees, 25 are continuing in service and necessary administrative steps shall be taken forthwith to implement the directions of this Court in letter and spirit.

¶77

9. In view of the said assurance and undertaking given by Respondent No. 2, and without entering into the merits of the controversy involved in the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed in WP(S) Nos. 2792/2015 and 2802/2015, the present writ appeal is disposed of in terms of the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2.

¶78

10. The respondent authorities are directed to strictly adhere to the statements and undertakings made therein and to ensure that the appellants are allowed to continue in service as indicated, subject to any further orders that may be passed in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as conferring any right of regularization upon the appellants, and their claims in that regard shall be considered independently in accordance with applicable rules and law, if so advised.

¶79

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶80

Sagrika

Shailesh Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Dewangan 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeshwar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Kishor Kumar Sidar

Harish Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Beniram Sahu Vs Virendra Kumar Thakur and Anr.

Ganpat Prasad Sahu Vs Ghasiram Dadsena