Rohit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders dated 06/10/2018 set aside in toto; matter remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration of the petitioners' regularisation claims in terms of the order dated 19/07/2017 in WPS/3162/2017 and clause 2(vii) of the circular dated 05/03/2008, within three months; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Divisional Forest Officer could reject the petitioners' representations for regularisation under circular dated 05/03/2008 on the ground that they had not continuously worked for 10 years, despite this Court's order dated 19/07/2017 in WPS/3162/2017 recording that the effect of the Labour Court order was that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break. +1 more

Court's answer

The finding recorded by the Divisional Forest Officer in the impugned order that the petitioners had not continuously worked for 10 years is contrary and perverse, in view of this Court's earlier finding (order dated 19/07/2017 in WPS/3162/2017) that the effect of the Labour Court order was that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break, and the said finding is set aside.

Ratio / Principle

Clause 2(vii) of the circular dated 05/03/2008 specifically provides that regularisation be made against sanctioned and vacant posts and that supernumerary posts be created wherever required in the Department; the Divisional Forest Officer did not consider this clause while passing the impugned order and straightway rejected the petitioners' claims.

Key takeaways

The impugned order is set aside in toto and the matter is remitted to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claims for regularisation in terms of the order dated 19/07/2017 passed in WPS/3162/2017 as well as clause 2(vii) of the circular dated 05/03/2008, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶143

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Regularisation — Forest Department employees (Forest Division Balod) sought regularisation under circular dated 05/03/2008; Divisional Forest Officer, Balod rejected their representations by similar but separate orders dated 06/10/2018 on the grounds that they had not continuously worked for 10 years and were not appointed against vacant regular posts. Held, allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the impugned orders in toto: (i) the finding of non-continuous service is contrary and perverse in view of this Court's order dated 19/07/2017 in WPS/3162/2017 (Narayan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), which recorded that the effect of the Labour Court order was that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break, entitling him to due consideration for regularisation under the circular; (ii) clause 2(vii) of the circular dated 05/03/2008 — which provides that regularisation be made against sanctioned and vacant posts and that supernumerary posts be created wherever required in the Department — was not considered by the competent authority, as held in order dated 17/01/2025 in WPS/4130/2020 (Minaram Gangasagar v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Matter remitted to the competent authority for consideration of the regularisation claims in terms of the order dated 19/07/2017 and clause 2(vii) of the circular, within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs. (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.; single bench; decided 23.02.2026.)