Punaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:10660-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 198 of 2026

¶6

Punaram Sahu S/o Late Govind Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Haldi, Ward No. 51, Post Office Mohara, Police Station Lalbagh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Add. A.G.

¶13

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

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

02.03.2026

¶17

1. Heard Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent / State.

¶18

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHANMORLE BRIJMOHANMORLEDate: 2026.03.02 17:21:20 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 8597/2023 ( Punaram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.

¶21

3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed by the respondents as a daily wager on the post of Tractor Driver prior to 31.08.1987 and has since been continuously serving under respondent no. 2, receiving salary in his account. Despite this long service, the respondents have not complied with the directives contained in the circulars issued by the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh dated 05.03.2008 and 16.08.2012 regarding the regularization of daily wagers and workcharged employees. While several junior employees have been regularized under the Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, the writ petitioner has been denied such regularization. The petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 6080/2018 before this Court, which was disposed of on 17.09.2018 with a direction to scrutinize his claim in accordance with the circular of 05.03.2008. Subsequently, when the respondents failed to act within the stipulated period, the writ petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No. 173/2020, in response to which the respondents informed the Court that the writ petitioner’s case was decided on 14.10.2019, finding him unsuitable for regularization on the ground of lacking the requisite educational qualifications. The writ

¶22

3

¶23

petitioner now challenges the order dated 14.10.2019, contending that the circular dated 05.03.2008 specifically mandates the regularization of daily wagers appointed before 31.12.1988 and does not stipulate any educational qualifications as a condition. The respondents’ reliance on alleged lack of qualifications directly contravenes the State Government’s policy and the explicit provisions of the circular. Further, no action was taken regarding the writ petitioner’s case even though he retired on 30.06.2021, and he has been deprived of retirement benefits and other entitlements that accrue upon regularization. Despite being covered by the relevant circular, the writ petitioner remains unregularized, and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge fails to consider these facts, thereby giving rise to the present appeal.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, along with the order dated 14.10.2019, are perverse, legally unsustainable, and liable to be set aside or quashed. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that Clause ‘A’ of the circular does not exempt the appellant from educational qualifications, whereas the plain language of Clause ‘A’ clearly applies to employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 without prescribing any such condition, and importing requirements from Clause ‘B’ amounts to judicial rewriting of government policy. The appellant, though initially appointed on a daily-wage basis, continuously rendered service for

¶25

4

¶26

nearly 35 years until his retirement, discharging all duties of a regular Tractor Driver, while the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, and Section 70(1) thereof provide for duly sanctioned posts and empower the competent authority to create or increase posts as necessary. The learned Single Judge’s finding that the circular does not create enforceable rights is legally erroneous, as once the State frames a policy and extends benefits to similarly situated employees, denial to the appellant becomes arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appellant has been subjected to hostile discrimination, whereas junior employees in identical circumstances have been regularized. His service, at worst irregular and not illegal, squarely falls within the one-time regularization principle recognized in Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, entitling him to regularization and all consequential benefits including pay fixation, arrears, and pension recalculation, in accordance with paragraph 19(iii) of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dharam Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another (2025). Reliance by the learned Single Judge on judgments relating to retrospective promotions and seniority is wholly misplaced, as the appellant seeks notional regularization solely for retiral benefits, consistently recognized by courts. The denial of pension and gratuity after decades of continuous service violates his rights to livelihood and dignity under Article 21. Further, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Bhola Nath vs. State of

¶27

5

¶28

Jharkhand & Others (30.01.2026) emphasizes that part-time and contractual employees are integral to the machinery of the State and must be treated fairly, without arbitrariness. Finally, the appellant’s case is squarely covered by government instructions for the regularization of daily-wage and contingency-paid employees, specifically exempting drivers engaged in driving vehicles from educational qualification requirements, as evidenced by the letter dated 22.07.2004, and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶29

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for.

¶30

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶31

7. Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge shows that the core issue considered was whether the writ petitioner, solely on the basis of long service and reliance on the circular dated 05.03.2008, could claim regularization with retrospective effect along with consequential monetary and retiral benefits after superannuation. The learned Single Judge observed that the circular is an executive policy

¶32

6

¶33

providing a framework for regularization, which is subject to conditions such as availability of sanctioned posts, suitability of the employee, and compliance with applicable service rules, and does not create an automatic or indefeasible right to regularization. It was noted that the writ petitioner’s claim had been considered by the respondents on multiple occasions pursuant to directions in earlier writ petitions and contempt proceedings, culminating in a reasoned order dated 14.10.2019 rejecting the claim on the ground of non-fulfillment of eligibility conditions, including suitability for appointment on a regular post. The learned Single Judge held that there was no procedural illegality, perversity, or mala fide in the decision-making process. The contention that Clause ‘A’ of the circular exempts employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988 from all eligibility conditions, including educational qualifications, was rejected, as executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment rules or compel regularization in the absence of sanctioned posts or prescribed qualifications. The Court further held that retrospective regularization and grant of consequential monetary benefits are impermissible unless expressly authorized under the rules, relying on Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 , and found that the writ petitioner’s reliance on judgments such as Umadevi, Jaggo, and Dharam Singh was misplaced, as those cases involved employees working against sanctioned posts or where statutory provisions permitted regularization. The plea of

¶34

7

¶35

parity was also rejected due to lack of material showing similarly situated employees had been regularized despite ineligibility. Finally, the Single Judge emphasized that after superannuation, the writ petitioner cannot claim regularization, pension, or gratuity when he was never a regular appointee, as such benefits flow from statutory entitlement and cannot be judicially granted. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, holding that the order dated 14.10.2019 suffers from no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity.

¶36

8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶37

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶38

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

¶39

Brijmohan

Punaram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punaram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azmat Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S A.K. Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dinesh Patel

Shriram Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh