Binod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010150842025

2026:CGHC:28734

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2793 of 2025

¶7

1 - Binod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Bishnu Prasad Sharma Aged About 55 Years Working As Time Keeper/telephone Attendant (Daily Wager) In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.13 2 - Jaynath S/o Ghursay Aged About 48 Years Working As Labour/ 10:37:22 +0530 Dhobi (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Beeralal S/o Budhraram Aged About 50 Years Working As Labour/ Sahayak Khansama (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Ramchandra S/o Late Sainath Aged About 50 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

5 - Jawahir S/o Gobha Ram Aged About 53 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

6 - Jankiram S/o Late Chattiram Aged About 58 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

2

¶14

7 - Satan S/o Shri Ramsay Aged About 47 Years Working As Labour/ Khansama (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

8 - Chamanlal S/o Rudan Ram Aged About 42 Years Working As Labour/ Sahayak Khansama (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶16

9 - Chandrabahadur S/o Gendaram Aged About 48 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶17

10 - Ajay Ram S/o Late Buddhsai Ram Aged About 41 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶18

11 - Budh Ram Yadav S/o Late Jagdeo Ram Aged About 52 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶19

12 - Naihar Sai S/o Shri Baijnath Aged About 41 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶20

13 - Smt. Asha Bai W/o Late Sunder Ram Aged About 58 Years Working As Labour/ Mail (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶21

14 - Chetan Ram S/o Late Bigan Ram Aged About 59 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶22

3

¶23

15 - Sahadan Ram S/o Khalpariha Ram Aged About 49 Years Working As Skilled Labour/ Driver (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶24

16 - Bacchu Yadav S/o Kripal Yadav Aged About 55 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No. 1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶25

17 - Satyanarayan S/o Shivbachan Ram Aged About 47 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.2, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶26

18 - Heeralal Rajwade S/o Late Sukrit Rajwade Aged About 46 Years Working As Permanent Skilled Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.2, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶27

19 - Deo Narayan S/o Roopsai Aged About 53 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.2, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶28

20 - Bharat Ram S/o Khorsa Ram Aged About 47 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.2, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶29

21 - Jeet Ram S/o Kanwal Sai Aged About 47 Years Working As Labour (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.2, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶30

22 - Smt. Sushila Bai D/o Shri Jadbeer Kujur Aged About 47 Years Working As Labour/ Mali (Daily Wager), In The Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

... Petitioners

4

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶35

2 - Engineer-In-Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶36

3 - Chief Engineer Department Of Public Works, Surguja Zone, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶37

4 - Superintendent Engineer Department Of Public Works (B/r), Circle Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶38

5 - Executive Engineer Department Of Public Works (B/r), Division Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶39

6 - Executive Engineer Department Of Public Works (B/r), Division Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶40

7 - Sub Divisional Officer Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.1, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶41

8 - Sub Divisional Officer Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division No.2, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶42

9 - Sub Divisional Officer, Department Of Public Works (B/r), Sub Division Ramanujganj, District- Ramanujganj- Balrampur (C.G.)

¶43

	... Respondents
For Petitioners	: Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State	: Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, G.A. with Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer

¶44

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶45

Order on Board

¶46

09/07/2026

¶47

By the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

¶48

5

¶49

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner.

¶50

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on their respective post against which they are working as the petitioners having qualification for the post which are lying vacant in the department.

¶51

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner like similarly situated employee with all consequential benefits.

¶52

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgments mentioned in writ petition passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court.

¶53

10.5 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit may also be awarded.”

¶54

(i) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed prior to 31.12.1997 and, though they were wrongly terminated in the year 2000, they were subsequently reinstated with continuity of service, without any break. Since reinstatement, they have continuously worked

¶55

6

¶56

for more than ten years against regular, sanctioned, and vacant posts, performing duties identical to those of regular employees. Learned counsel submits that the similarly situated employees have already been regularized pursuant to the ‘ n ’ number of judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, whereas the petitioners' cases have been ignored without any valid reason. The respondents have also failed to consider the petitioners' representations and in these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to consideration for regularization in accordance with law, and any attempt to fill the posts through regular recruitment before deciding their claims would cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioners.

¶57

(ii) According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner has the requisite qualification and have also rendered the required length of continuous service in the respondents department as daily wagers, in view of above circular of the State Government, their services should have been regularized as has been done in the case of other similarly situated employees.

¶58

Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the order dated 16.5.2017 of Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.1703/2015 in the matter of Tukaram Vs. State of CG and others , and other connected writ petitions.

¶59

7

¶60

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 05.03.2008. The Circular applies only to employees who were engaged on or before 1997, had completed ten years of continuous service, and whose appointments satisfy the conditions laid down therein. In the present case, the petitioners were neither appointed against sanctioned posts nor through a regular process of advertisement and selection. Therefore, they do not fall within the ambit of the Circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure R/1). Learned counsel further submits that the creation of posts, prescription of the mode of recruitment, and regularization of employees are matters falling within the exclusive domain of the employer. No direction for regularization can be issued in respect of appointments made de hors the recruitment rules. Learned counsel would further submit that the circular dated 5.3.2008 is applicable to only those daily wagers/ad hoc appointees who were appointed on or before 31.12.1997 and continued uninterruptedly for 10 years till the date of consideration for regularization. After examination of record, the committee submitted its report along with list of daily wagers and since the petitioners who were engaged as daily wager did not complete the qualifying continuous service of 10 years, their names were not considered for regularization as per Circular dated 5.3.2008.

¶61

8

¶62

I have head learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

¶63

This Court in the matter of Tukaram ( supra ) in paras 22, 23, 24

¶64

& 25 of its order observed as under:-

¶65

“22. Now if we look into the facts of the present case, undisputedly, by now it has to be accepted that these workmen were initially appointed on different dates as mentioned in the aforementioned chart. Perusal of the said chart would reveal that all the workmen have put in a considerable period of time from the date of their appointment before they were discontinued in service and after the order of the Labour Court which in due course of time has attained finality they have also been reinstated. From the date of reinstatement also till date all the workmen are still working with the Respondents and from the date of reinstatement also they have put in a considerable period of time. All these workers have been slogging with the Respondents with a hope and legitimate expectation of being regularized one day. Based upon the judgment of Umadevi (supra), the State of Chhattisgarh also has issued a circular on 5.3.2008. The object of the said circular also was for considering the persons who had completed more than 10 years of service they should be regularized.

¶66

9

¶67

The alleged order of termination of service of the daily wage workers was held to be illegal by the Labour Court. The effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of discontinuance never existed. All these workmen as on date are all middle aged persons and would not be now in a position for getting a regular employment elsewhere.

¶68

Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008 also being the circular of the State Government issued keeping in mind the welfare of the poor workers and has been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed on daily wage basis and the post against which these persons are discharging so as to subserve the Chhat common good that can occur to the workers for the long service rendered by the respective workmen.

¶69

Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal

¶70

10

¶71

or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008. 25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just, proper and legal.”

¶72

From bare perusal of the material available on record and the pleadings made by the parties, it is evident from Annexure P-1, which is duly issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Division Ambikapur, the petitioners were appointed on the sanctioned posts and they are still working in their respective posts.

¶73

It is also evident that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No.6626/2017 & other connected matters, the similarly situated persons have been regularized in the service by order dated 07/02/2025. The case of the petitioners herein is also similar and identical to the case of the petitioner of WPS No.6626/2017. Therefore, in light of decision of this Court in the matter of Tukaram (supra) and also for the fact that pursuant to the order of this Court, the similarly situated

¶74

11

¶75

persons were regularized in their respective service, the

¶76

services of the petitioners also deserve to be regularized.

¶77

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed . The respondent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the present petitioners on their respective post from the date when services of other similarly situated employees were regularized, with all consequential benefits.

¶78

SD/-

¶79

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶80

Gowri/

¶81

Amardeep

Binod Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Sharma 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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanaki Mukherjee Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bhanupriya Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amresh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Singh Vs Shri Jitendra Kumar Painkra

Geeta Sahu Vs Union of India