Shriram Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA Date:2026.04.13 14:23:47 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2468 of 2015

¶5

1 - Durga Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Rameshar Dewangan Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Tekari, Block Abhanpr, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶6

2 - Ganeshram Sahu S/o Shri Bhagatram Sahu Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Siriyadih Block Baloda- Bazar, P.S. Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

3 - Smt. Riman Soni D/o Shri Durga Prasad Soni Aged About 47 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Kopra, Belar, Tahsil Fingeshwar, Dsitrict Gariyaband Chhattisgarh , District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

4 - Smt. Jharna Sahu W/o Shri Kanshiram Sahu Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Chhura, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh , District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

5 - Lalji Sahu S/o Shri Sitaram Sahu Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Seonikala Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

6 - Vedram Sahu S/o Shri Rikhiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Kharenga, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh , District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶11

7 - Beni Madhav Das Vaishnav S/o Shri Ramsharan Das Vaishnav Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Deori Block Khairagarh Dsitrict Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

8 - Premshankar Sidar S/o Late Shri Budeshwar Prasad Sidar Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Sankara, Block Baramkela, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2

¶14

9 - Laxminarayan Nag S/o Shri Chamra Nag Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted As Aushadhalay Sevak At Govt Ayurved Hospital Lokhandi District Jashpur Chhattisgarh , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

versus

¶17

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahandi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralyaa, New Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶18

2 - The Director Aayurved Yog Awam Prakritik Chikitsa, Yunani, Siddh Awam Homeopathy Aayush Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

-- Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioner No. 2, 8 & 9.	: Mr.	Ramesh Nayak, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Mr.	Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt.
	Adv	ocate.

¶21

WPS No. 12252 of 2025

¶22

1 - Rajeshwar Singh S/o Shri Bavan Singh Aged About 48 Years Posted As Dispensary Servant, Government Ayurved Dispensary Kuwarpur, District Manendragarh- Chirimiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) R/o Ward No. 4 Parsapani, Chirmi, Post Chirmi, Police Station Baikunthpur, Tehsil Podi (Bachra), District Koriya (C.G.)

¶23

--- Petitioner(s)

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶26

2 - Director Ayurved Yog Evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sidha, Yunani Evam Homeopathi (Aayush), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶27

3 - Collector Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur, District ManendragarhChirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶28

4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Manendragarh-ChirimiriBharatpur, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶29

3

¶30

5 - Zila Ayurved Officer Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur, District Manendragarh-Chirimiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶31

--- Respondent(s)

¶32

WPS No. 12266 of 2025

¶33

1 - Ku. Neera Bai Mahant D/o Shri Jagat Das Mahant Aged About 49 Years Posted As Dispensary Servant, Government Ayurved Dispensary Gorpar, District- Raigarh (C.G.), R/o Village Nawagaon, PostKatahardi, Police Station- Kotararoad, Tehsil- Kharsiya, DistrictRaigarh (C.G.)

¶34

--- Petitioner(s)

¶35

Versus

¶36

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶37

2 - Director Ayurved Yog Evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sidha, Yunani Evam Homeopathi (Aayush), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶38

3 - Collector Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶39

4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶40

5 - Zila Ayurved Officer Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶41

--- Respondent(s)

¶42

WPS No. 12217 of 2025

¶43

1 - Shriram Rajwade S/o Shri Soharram Rajwade Aged About 48 Years Dispensary Servant, Government Ayurved Dispensary Gangoti, District Surajpur C.G. R/o Village Nawabandh, Post Karji (Darima Road), Police Station Darima, Tehsil And District Ambikapur C.G.

¶44

--- Petitioner(s)

¶45

Versus

¶46

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶47

2 - Director Ayurved, Yog Evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sidha, Yunani Evam Homeopathi (Aayush), Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶48

3 - Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G.

¶49

4

¶50

4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G.

¶51

5 - Zila Ayurved Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G.

¶52

--- Respondent(s)

¶53

For Petitioners :	Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate.
For State/Respondent :	Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. Govt.
No. 1,2,3 & 5.	Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel
	Lawyer, Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer, and
	Mr. Rohan Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No.4 :	None

¶54

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board

¶55

02/03/2026

¶56

1. Despite repeated calls none appears for other petitioners and since, the present petitions are pending since 2015 and 2025, this Court proceeds to hear the writ petitions finally.

¶57

2. The challenge in all these writ petitions are one and common i.e. the petitioners, who are the contractual employee of the Respondent/ Department are claiming regularization of their services, therefore, all these writ petitioner are being heard and decided together.

¶58

WPS No. 2468 of 2025

¶59

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respective petitioners are working as Aushdhalay Sevak and they have been appointed as contractual basis in the year 1999 to 2000. Initially their appointment was one year and thereafter, their appointment was

¶60

5

¶61

extended time to time under the Rules and Circulars of the State Government. Their services have been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh at the time of bifurcation of the State. Initially the petitioners were appointed by the Jila Panchayat, Raipur and subsequently their service have been merged with the Department of Ayurvedic, State of C.G. and now they become the employee of Ayurved Department and working as Aushdhalay Sevak. Since, the petitioners are working for last more than 16 years continuously, they claimed regularization of their service under the relevant Rules and Circulars of the State Government. Earlier the petitioner have filed a writ petition (S) No. 2100/2011 before this Court which was disposed of on 21.04.2011 directing the petitioners to make their representation before the competent authority who shall decide the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners have made their representation to the Respondent No. 1 who in view of the circular dated 01.06.2009 issued by the State Government have rejected the representation of the petitioners vide order dated 09.02.2015 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶62

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner No. 2, 8 and 9 would submit that the petitioners have entered into service after due process of recruitment at the advertisement was issued, they participated in the recruitment process and the selection committee after considering the entire educational qualification as well as other requisite qualification under the advertisement

¶63

6

¶64

appointed the petitioners for one year, initially their appointment was contractual basis which are to be extended time to time and till date the petitioners are working under the on the said post continuously. The appointment of the petitioners are not illegal but it can be considered to be irregular appointment and there is no bar to regularize the services of the petitioners on the said post. He would refer the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo Vs. Union of India, AIR 2025 SC 296 and would submit that the petitioners are also entitled for regularization of their services as they continuously served for more than 25 years without any interruption of service. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioners be quashed and the respondent/ authority may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶65

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the circular dated 01.06.2009 specific prohibits the state authorities to regularize the services of the contractual employees. The notification dated 01.06.2009 has not been challenged by any of the parties and in view of the circular dated 01.06.2009, the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized and on that very grounds, the representation has been rejected by the Respondent No. 1. The petitioners are only a contractual employee and they cannot claim for regularization as their

¶66

7

¶67

services have been governed by the Contractual Employment Rules, 2012, therefore, the petitioners do not have any merits and their petitions are liable to be dismissed. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 899 Union of India and Others vs. Imlo Devi and Another and would submit that the regularization is a policy matter of the State and in absence of any specific policy for regularization of the contractual employees, the petitioners services cannot be regularized, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petitions and is liable to be dismissed.

¶68

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the writ petitions.

¶69

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the contractual employees they have been entered into services in the year 1999-2000 on contractual basis initially for one year and thereafter their services have been extended by the Respondent authorities from time to time and still they are the contractual employees of the concerned department. There is a circular dated 01.06.2009 with respect to the regularization of the services of the contractual employees. The said circular dated 01.06.2009 is necessary to be reproduced herein which reads

¶70

herein:-

¶71

दा�ऊ dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj

¶72

dzekad ,Q 12&1@2009@1&3 jk;iqj] fnukad 01-06-2009

¶73

8

¶74

izfr]

¶75

‘kklu ds leLr foHkkx] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] v/;{k] NRrhlx< jktLo eaMy] fcykliqj] leLr laHkkxk;qDr] NRrhlx<] leLr dysDVj] Nrrhlx<A

¶76

वि�षय-- स�वि�दा�विनय�क्तअधि�का�रि�य�@कामा�चा�रि�य�का�विनयधिमावितका�णनका�न! बा�बात# । ्ቚ�य% यहदा!खन! मा' आ�ह�ह) विकाकावितपयवि�भा�गቛኋ��अपन! वि�भा�गमा' का�य � तस�वि�दा�विनय�क्तकामा�चा�रि�य�का�विनयमा@विनदा-शा�का! वि�प��तविनयधिमातका�दिदाय� गय�ह)।स�मा�न्य्ቚ शा�सनवि�भा�गቛኋ��जा��विनदा-शादिदान��का 05-03-2008 मा' का! �लतदा्ቕ� ए��दा)विनका�!तनभा�ग�कामा�चा�रि�य�का�ह�विनयधिमातका�न! का! विनदा-शाह)।स�वि�दा�विनय�क्त अधि�का�रि�य�@कामा�चा�रि�य�का�विनयधिमात�का�णका�न! का�विनयमा�@विनदा-शा�मा'्ቚ ��ननह3 ह) ।उनका�विनयधिमात�का�णका�न�एकाअविनयधिमातका�य � �ह�ह) । 2@- अत5 इसस�बा मा'्ቢ्ቖ रूपस! विनदा-शिशातविकाय�जा�त�ह) विकाशा�सनका! वि�भा�ग�मा' स�वि�दा�प�विनय�क्तकामा�चा�रि�य�का�विनयधिमात�का�णनह3 विकाय�जा�एए��यदिदा विनयधिमात�का�णविकाय�गय�ह�त�उनका�विनयधिमावितका�णआदा!शातत्का�ल्ቚ भा��स! विन�स्त का�न! का= का�य � �ह�का= जा�य!।स�्ቕ ह�ቔ኎�टी@पAण�विनयधिमात�का�णका! फलस्�रूपस�बा�धि�त कामा�चा�रि�य�का�विकाय! गय! अवितरि�क्त�!तन@भाቈኍ�का= �सAल�का�त! हुए] स�बा�धि�त विनय�ሹኌक्तकात��अधि�का��का! वि�रू्ቍ वि�भा�ग�यका�य � �ह�भा�्ቚ स्त�वि�तका= जा�य।

¶77

d`i;k funsZ’kks dk dMkbZ ls ikyu lqfuf’pr djsA

¶78

8. The impugned order dated 09.02.2015 clearly reflects that the representation of the petitioners have been rejected by the Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the said circular dated 01.06.2009 and in para 3 of the impugned order dated 09.02.2015, it has been mentioned that:

¶79

"3. सा�मा�न्य ्ቚशा�सान वि�भा�ग के� परि�प्ቔ केमा��के एफ 121/2009/1-3, वि�न��के 01. 06.2009 ቛኋ�� सा�वि�� विनय�्ሹ अधि�के��/केमा�चा�रि�य! के� विनयविमावि"के�ण न के�न� के� स्प्ቖ विन�&शा! के� परि�्ቚ�ቌኚय मा( सा�वि�� प� के�य � " औष��लय सा � के / मावि,ल� स्��स्थ्य के�य�के"��ओं� के/ ्ቚथमा विनय�वि्ሹ वि�न��के सा� विनयविमावि"के�ण ,�"� ्ቚ�विष" अभ्य�� न, ��ज्य शा�सान ቛኋ��

¶80

9

¶81

साभा� "थ्य! के/ दृवि्ቖग" �ख"� ,5ए, प6ण� वि�चा��/प��" अमा�न्य विकेय� जा�"� ,8।"

¶82

9. When the petitioners’ services are contractual in nature and there is no policy of regularization of services of the contractual employees, it is very difficult for this Court to direct the Respondent authority to regularize the services of the petitioners. As the same are the policy matter of the State with respect to the regularization of the services of the employees.

¶83

10. In the case of University of Delhi vs. Delhi University Contract

¶84

Employees Union, (2021) 16 SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

¶85

The decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3)¹ was pronounced on 10-4-2006 by which time, the earliest contract employees had put in only 3-4 years of service and most of the contract employees were engaged after the decision in Umadevi (3). In paras 47, 49 and 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), this Court stated: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42)

¶86

"47. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when

¶87

1 State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶88

10

¶89

an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure for selection and in cases concerned, in consultation with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.

¶90

¶91

It is contended that the State action in not regularising the employees was not fair within the framework of the rule of law. The rule of law compels the State to make appointments as envisaged by the Constitution and in the manner we have indicated earlier. In most of these cases, no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of time but this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation of the constitutional scheme adopted by us, the people of India. It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons

¶92

11

¶93

employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even though they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶94

¶95

One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa² , R.N. Nanjundappa³ and B.N. Nagarajan⁴ 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 sanctioned posts but not

¶96

2 State of Mysore v. S. V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071

¶97

3 R. N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409

¶98

4 B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, 1980 SCC (L& S) 4

¶99

12

¶100

under cover of orders of the courts undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are emploved. The process must be set in motion within six months from this up in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now if any already made, but judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional 6 be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising scheme."

¶101

(emphasis supplied)

¶102

The decision in Umadevi (3) and other relevant decisions on the point were considered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, In that case, the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court were under challenge. The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court had directed absorption of Group 'C' staff, which direction was affirmed by the Division Bench. Similarly, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court had directed absorption of the writ petitioners in their appropriate scales with benefits such as fitment and promotions which directions were affirmed 16 in appeal by the Division Bench. This Court accepted the challenge and set aside the directions issued by the Calcutta High Court and the Delhi High Court. During the course of its judgment, this Court made the following observations: (Dayanand case (2008) 10 SCC 1, SCC pp. 38 & 50, paras 52 & 75)

¶103

"52.... In this context, we may also mention that though the Official Liquidators appear to have

¶104

13

¶105

issued advertisements for appointing the company-paid staff and made some sort of selection, more qualified e and meritorious persons must have shunned from applying because they knew that the employment will be for a fixed term on fixed salary and their engagement will come to an end with the conclusion of liquidation proceedings. As a result of this, only mediocres must have responded to the advertisements and joined as company-paid staff. In this scenario, a direction for absorption of all the company-paid staff has to be treated as violative of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶106

¶107

By virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3)2 is binding on all the courts including this Court till the same is overruled by a larger Bench. The g ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment has been followed by different two-Judge Benches for declining to entertain the claim of regularisation of service made by ad hoc / temporary / daily-wage / casual employees or for reversing the orders of the High Court granting relief to such employees Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. LV. Subramanyeswara, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh However, in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey on which reliance has been placed by Shri Gupta, a two-Judge Bench has attempted to dilute the Constitution Bench judgment by suggesting that

¶108

14

¶109

the said decision cannot be applied to a case where regularisation has been sought for in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the same is in conflict with the judgment of the seven-Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India"

¶110

(emphasis supplied)

¶111

All the decisions relied upon by Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate were by Benches of two Judges of this Court and in each of those cases, the employees concerned had put in more than 10 years of service and could claim benefit in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3). In the last of those decisions i.e. in Narendra Kumar Tiwari, the submission was that the employees had not put in more than 10 years of service with the newly created State of Jharkhand and, therefore, there was no entitlement in terms of the decision in Umadevi (3). Relying on the concept of one-time measure elaborated in M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 1, it was observed: (Narendra Kumar Tiwari case, SCC pp. 239-41, paras 3 & 6-7)

¶112

"3. The appellants had contended before the High Court that the State of Jharkhand was created only on 15-11-2000 and therefore no one could have completed 10 years of service with the State of Jharkhand on the cut-off date of 10-4-2006. Therefore, no one could get the benefit of the Regularisation Rules which made the entire legislative exercise totally meaningless. The appellants had pointed out in the High Court that the State had issued Resolutions on 18-7-2009 and 19-7-2009 permitting the regularisation of some employees of the State, who had obv

¶113

15

¶114

obviously not put in 10 years of service with the State. Consequently, it was submitted that the appellants were discriminated against for no fault of theirs and in an irrational manner.

¶115

¶116

The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: (SCC pp. 250-51)

¶117

The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3)2, each department or each instrumentality should b undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

¶118

At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several dailywage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the onetime regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled

¶119

16

¶120

to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the e one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The onetime exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.

¶121

The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the

¶122

17

¶123

ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure."

¶124

The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation

¶125

18

¶126

and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari, sought to avoid."

¶127

The contract employees in the present case cannot, therefore, claim the relief of regularisation in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3). The rejection of their petition by the Single Judge of the High Court was quite g correct and there was no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere in the matter

¶128

11. Since, the circular dated 01.06.2009, specific bars the regularization of the contractual employees and the services of the petitioners are contractual, their services can not be directed to be regularized. Though, this Court is having full sympathy with them that they are continuously in service for more than 25 years, yet in absence of any policy decision of the State Government or challenge to that notification dated 01.06.2009, the petitioners services cannot be regularized.

¶129

12. I do not find any scope for interference in the writ petitions for directing the Respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners.

¶130

13. Consequently, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

¶131

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶132

Judge

¶133

Alok

Shriram Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Rajwade 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

Shubham Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh