Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010025252017 2026:CGHC:29535

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 364 of 2017

¶6

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu S/o Shri Murli Manohar Sahu Aged About 49 Years Presently Working As " Asstt. Grade Iii Daily Wages In Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Kharsia, District- Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Director, Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan Block-3, Fourth Floor, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Joint Director, Industrial Training Institute, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. Principal, Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

13.7.2026

¶18

2

¶19

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶20

10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal.

¶21

10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27/4/2016 (annexure p-1) passed by the respondent authorities.

¶22

10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and the petitioner must also be entitled for back wages and other consequential benefits from his regularization.

¶23

10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

¶24

2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Kharsia, District Raigarh on daily wage basis vide order dated 17.12.1998. Petitioner preferred WPS No. 3744 of 2010 seeking therein regularization which was disposed vide order dated 23.7.2010 directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of petitioner. Pursuant to order passed in writ petition, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 27.4.2011 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997 therefore the circular dated 5.3.2008 would not attract on him. Petitioner again approached the respondent-department seeking regularization vide representation dated 21.12.2016 but no heed was paid.

¶25

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2

¶26

3

¶27

rejected the representation made by the petitioner solely on the ground that he was appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997 therefore circular dated 5.3.2008 would not attract on him. He further submits that as petitioner has been working with the department for more than 25 years, respondent authorities should have considered the claim of petitioner with regard to regularization. He prays to allow this writ petition.

¶28

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submits that petitioner was appointed after the cut-off date i.e. 31.12.1997 therefore he would not come within the purview of circular dated 5.3.2008. He further submits that petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts and he was never interviewed therefore he has no right to claim regularization. He also submits that respondent No. 2 rejected the representation made by the petitioner after due consideration and this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

6) In the present case, petitioner has been continuously working with the department for more than 25 years and his claim for regularization has been rejected solely on the ground that he was appointed after the cut-off date i. e. 31.12.1997. In my considered view, it is not necessary for an establishment or a State instrumentality to always apply circular dated 5.3.2008 while

¶31

4

¶32

dealing with the cases of regularization. The authority concerned has to consider nature of employment, length of service, past record of employee, sanctioned vacancy etc. It is well settled principle of law that prolonged temporary engagement of daily wagers amounts exploitation and defeats constitutional mandate.

¶33

7) The aspect of regularization has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Versus Union of India¹ in which it has been held in paragraphs 26 and 27 as under :

¶34

2 6 . While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted legitimate claims of longserving employees. This or misapplied to judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and deny "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases appointments are not illegal, but merely lack where their adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶35

2 7 . In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable

¶36

2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1032

¶37

5

¶38

employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

¶39

8) Recently, in Shripal Versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad² , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that Uma Devi judgment cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitation through long term “ad-hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. Relevant paragraph 14 reads as under :-

¶40

14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.

¶41

2 . 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221

¶42

6

¶43

9) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 27.4.2011 is hereby quashed and matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to consider the claim of petitioner keeping in mind the observations made herein-above. It is expected that entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 2 within period of 150 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

10) In result, this writ petition stands allowed .

¶45

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶46

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.14 17:42:12 +0530

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manish Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

M/s Ganpati Motors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Khorbahra Ram Urvasha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kedarnath Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh