Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) set aside; matter remitted to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization afresh, preferably within 120 days, strictly in accordance with law, taking into account Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016 and the Service Book (Annexure P/8).

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17/02/2022 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization, passed without considering Annexure P/7 and the Service Book (Annexure P/8), is liable to be quashed. +2 more

Court's answer

Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016 clearly manifests that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and continuously worked for a period of 14 years under the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur did not consider the documents dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure P/7) and the Service Book (Annexure P/8), the order Annexure P/1 dated 17.02.2022 is set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted back to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization afresh, preferably within a period of 120 days, strictly in accordance with the law.ratio¶29
The authority concerned shall consider documents Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016 and the Service Book (Annexure P/8) while taking its decision on the claim for regularization.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 2870 of 2022, decided 18.03.2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. — The petitioner, recorded in Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016 as having been appointed in 1995 and having worked continuously for 14 years under the Public Works Department, was refused regularization by order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of regular service. Holding that the Chief Engineer had failed to consider Annexure P/7 and the Service Book (Annexure P/8), the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department to decide the claim for regularization to the post of Labour afresh, preferably within 120 days, strictly in accordance with law, considering the said documents. Petition allowed.

1

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.19 15:04:50 +0530

2026:CGHC:13050

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2870 of 2022

Rajkumar Sahu S/o Shri Kolhu Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Awas Para, Behind Rice Mill, Village And Post Mopka, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Executive Engineer Public Works Department (B./r.), Division No.1, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner	: Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel
	Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

18.03.2026

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call record in respect of regularization of services of petitioner.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the order dated 17/02/2022 (Annexure – P/1).

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

2

directed Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for regularization to the post of Labour.

10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to directed respondents to regularized the service from his junior’s has been regularized.

10.5 That the cost of the Petition be granted.”

Mr. S.P. Kale would submit that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 10 years of regular service under the respondents. He would refer Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016 issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Department and Service book (Annexure P/8) which show that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and he worked for more than 14 years under the respondents. He would submit that respondent No. 2 has not considered those documents and passed order Annexure P/1. He would pray to set-aside order dated 17.02.2022.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose.

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

Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016, clearly manifests that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and he continuously worked for a period of 14 years. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Raipur has not considered documents dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure P/7) and Service Book (Annexure P/8), therefore, the order Annexure P/1 dated 17.02.2022 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization afresh preferably within a period of 120 days strictly in accordance with the law. The authority concerned shall consider documents Annexure P/7 dated 29.10.2016 and service book (Annexure P/8) while taking decision.

3

6. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

$iddhant