Rajkumar Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17556

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3278 of 2026

¶6

1 - Rajkumar Sidar S/o Shri Badal Sai Aged About 45 Years Working As Post Of Pump Operator At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Vijay Kumar Dahariya S/o Shri Punit Ram Dahariya Aged About 43 Years Working As Post Of Pump Operator At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, TahsilPathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Rewanand Yadav S/o Shri Mani Ram Aged About 42 Years Working As Post Of Time Keeper At, Working As Post Of Pump Operator At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶9

4 - Rohit Yadav S/o Shri Subhas Yadav Aged About 50 Years Working As Post Of Driver At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶10

5 - Lalit Yadav S/o Shri Kirtan Ram Yadav Aged About 41 Years Working As Post Of Line Man At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

6 - Ramprasad Ram Yadav S/o Shri Ramdev Ram Aged About 47 Years Working As Post Of Driver At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶12

7 - Nobhar Bada S/o Shri Johan Bada Aged About 45 Years Working As Post Of Labor At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶13

8 - Nirik Kerketta S/o Shri Dukhi Ram Aged About 41 Years Working As Post Of Pump Operator At Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

2

... Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

2 - The Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶19

3 - The Joint Director Ambikapur, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Division Sarguja (C.G.)

¶20

4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Advocate

¶23

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

17/04/2026

¶26

Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:-

¶27

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the series of judicial verdicts are referred above right from Umadevi’s case (Supra) read with Narendra Kumar Tiwari’s case (supra) upto recent verdicts as a onetime measure within a timeframe and given all the consequential benefits.

¶28

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any order relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are employees of respondents and was initially appointed as daily wage employee on the post of Pump Operator, Time Keeper and Driver from the year 1998 to 2006 and since then, they are continuously performing their duties

¶30

3

¶31

on the said post. Petitioners have completed more than 10 years of service however, they have not been regularized. He submits that petitioners may be permitted to submit representation before the respondent authorities raising all the grievance as raised in this writ petition and further, direction be issued to concerned respondent authorities to consider and take decision on the claim of petitioners for regularization of her service within specified time frame.

¶32

Learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that as petitioners are not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking permission to submit representation and a further direction to consider and take decision on representation to be submitted by petitioners, he is having no objection.

¶33

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

¶34

Claim as raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that they are continuously working as daily wage employees for more than about 10 years.

¶35

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of Jharkhand & Others reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 considered the issue of claim of regularization of temporary/daily wages employees, who had completed 10 years of service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Versus Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further observed that the government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the

¶36

4

¶37

organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale.

¶38

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30^th January 2026 has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization and have further directed for regularizing the appellants therein, in service.

¶39

Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices and observed thus:

¶40

“17 . Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The longterm extraction of regular labour under temporary labels

¶41

5

¶42

corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

¶43

18 . Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. x x x

¶44

20 . We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The

¶45

6

¶46

operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ”

¶47

Taking into consideration that the petitioners are engaged as daily wage employee since 1998 to 2006, the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.03.2008 for regularization of daily wage/temporary employee and the relief as claimed by petitioners for regularization of their services as also considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, this writ petition at this stage is disposed permitting the petitioners to submit fresh comprehensive representation before the Respondents No. 2 & 3 and if, such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation keeping in mind the period of service which the petitioners have completed of about 10 years as also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of regularization of daily wage/temporary employee, expeditiously, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of representation.

¶48

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.

¶49

Certified copy as per rules.

¶50

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM	Sd/-Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu)
DEY	Judge

¶51

Dey

Rajkumar Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Sidar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taras Ram Madhukar Vs Shri Dwarika Jaiswal

Rashmi Bhaskar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dakshina Nagesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Vidani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Soman Lal Netam Vs Mr. Abinash Mishra

Hiran Deo Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh