Ravindra Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jul 2026WPS/2615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 2615 of 2021, decided 08.07.2026 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey — regularization of daily-wage Suraksha Shramik (Forest Department, Bilaspur); counting of litigation period as part of service period following Labour Court reinstatement award (14.11.2011) under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act; reference to State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1; quashing of rejection order dated 04.06.2020; 90-day time-bound direction to reconsider regularization claim.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 4.6.2020 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur, with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶37

Ravindra Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the period spent in litigation pursuant to the Labour Court's award of reinstatement is to be reckoned as part of the petitioner's service period for determining completion of 10 years of service for regularization. +1 more

¶¶34

Court's answer

The period spent in litigation pursuant to the Labour Court's award of reinstatement would be treated as part of the petitioner's service period; consequently, the respondent authorities' conclusion that he had not completed 10 years of service, and their rejection of his representation, were erroneous.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 4.6.2020 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur is quashed and the petition is allowed.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; the Court did not itself regularize his services.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Daily-wage 'Suraksha Shramik' appointed 1.2.1993 under the Forest Department, Bilaspur; services discontinued and reinstated pursuant to a Labour Court award of reinstatement without back-wages dated 14.11.2011 (reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act). Earlier WP(S) No.6765 of 2019 (disposed 3.9.2019) had directed consideration of his regularization claim in light of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. His representation was rejected on 4.6.2020 by the Chief Conservator of Forest on the view that he had not completed 10 years of service. Held: the period spent in litigation pursuant to the reinstatement award forms part of the service period; the rejection order was erroneous and is quashed; respondents directed to consider the regularization claim expeditiously, preferably within 90 days.

CGHC010119692021

2026:CGHC:28168

NAFR

NIRMALA RAO

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 2615 of 2021

¶8

1 - Ravindra Pandey S/o Shri Kalika Prasad Pandey, Aged About 49 Years R/o. Daihanpara, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle Jharabhata Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Forest Range Officer, Forest Range - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner : Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Anmol Sharma, P.L.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

¶19

08.07.2026

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case.

¶22

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 04/06/2020 (Annexure P-1) and directed to regularized the services of petitioner.

¶23

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities to consider the case of Petitioner for regularization taking in account of seniority.

¶24

10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent Authorities, to consider the case of Petitioner regarding regularization on the post of Suraksha Shramik in pursuance of circulars.

¶25

10.5 Any other relief which may Hon'ble Court think fit in the circumstances.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage employee on the post of Suraksha Shramik under the respondents in the office of Forest Range Officer, Forest Range – Bilaspur, District Bilaspur with effect from 1.2.1993. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were discontinued by the respondents and therefore, an application was moved before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred to the concerned Labour Court for adjudication under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is argued that the learned Labour Court passed an award of reinstatement without back-wages on 14.11.2011. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, his claim with regard to regularization was not considered and his representation was rejected vide order dated 4.6.2020. He would

¶27

¶28

contend that earlier WP(S) No.6765 of 2019 was filed claiming therein regularization, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2019, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of regularization. It is argued that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post and an order of reinstatement was passed by the learned Labour Court on 14.11.2011. Thus, the period of litigation should have been counted as part of the service period by the respondent authorities.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner did not complete 10 years of service in the establishment, therefore, his claim with regard to regularization has been rejected and thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage employee under the respondents on 1.2.1993. The services of the petitioner were discontinued by the department and subsequently, an award of reinstatement was passed by the learned Labour Court. Pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated in the service. He moved an application for regularization and when no action was taken, he filed WP(S) No.6765 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 3.9.2019 wherein and whereby the respondent authorities were directed to consider the claim

¶32

¶33

of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and Ors., 2006 (4) SCC 1 .

¶34

The representation so made by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 4.6.2020 . It appears that the respondent authorities failed to reckon the period of litigation as part of the service period, concluded that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service and consequently, rejected the representation of the petitioner. The approach of the respondent authorities appears to be erroneous.

¶35

Learned Labour Court reinstated the petitioner and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated. The period spent in litigation would be treated as part of the service period and therefore, the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur dated 4.6.2020 appears to be erroneous.

¶36

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur dated 4.6.2020 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is allowed.

¶38

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

Nimmi

Ravindra Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Pandey 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

Dileshwar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Taslim Bano Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nai Dunia a Unit of Jagran Prakashan Limited Vs Prakash Bothra

Prabhakar Upadhyay, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Sirajuddin Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Shrivastava Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank