Ram Krishna Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010358222018

2026:CGHC:30271

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 7837 of 2018

¶7

Ram Krishna Sahu S/o Late Shree Mastram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Dabra, Thana And Tahsil Dabra, District- JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Employment And Training Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Director Employment And Training Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. AmandeepSingh, P.L.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Judgment On Board

¶14

16.7.2026

¶15

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

¶16

Quash and set aside the order dated 14.8.2013.

¶17

To direct the respondent authorities to consider the case and grant regularization in service to the petitioner, from the date when the Annexure P/6 was passed by the respondents and further please to direct the respondents to grant all consequential relief from the date of Annexure P/6.

¶18

Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favor of the petitioner

¶19

2

¶20

and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, petitioner was engaged by Industrial Training Institute, Dabra on the post of Class-IV employee on daily wage basis on 22.9.1997 and other daily wagers were considered for regularization of their services but no decision was taken with regard to petitioner. He further submits that various representations were made by the petitioner but no heed was paid. He also submits that though at present, petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, but the action on the part of respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the circular dated 5.3.2008. He prays to allow this petition.

¶22

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submits that claim of petitioner for regularization was considered by Joint Secretary, Skill Development & Technical Education and he was not found fit for regularization and information in this regard was communicated to Director, Employment and Training vide letter dated 24.7.2017. He further submits that petitioner cannot claim regularization after retirement and this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

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

¶24

5) In the present case, petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager in the year 1997 and he stood retired in March, 2026.

¶25

3

¶26

Perusal of letter/ communication dated 24.7.2017 would reveal that respondent No. 1 has not assigned sufficient reasons while rejecting the claim of petitioner. Also, petitioner has not been served with any order rejecting his claim of regularization. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dharam Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Another¹ held that if the initial denial of regularization by the State was illegal and arbitrary, the subsequent retirement of the employee cannot act as a shield to deny them their rightful claim of regularization or pension or retiral dues.

¶27

6) In view of the aforesaid discussion and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, this writ petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2, who in turn is directed to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law bearing in mind that petitioner has worked with the department for more than 25 years. It is expected that the authority concerned shall complete the entire exercise within period of 150 days from the date of receipt of copy of such representation.

¶28

7) With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed .

¶29

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶30

A j i n k y a

¶31

1 . 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

¶32

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.17 14:40:21 +0530

Ram Krishna Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Krishna 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

Similar cases

Suresh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P.C. Ratre Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Baghel Vs State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh

R.S. Rathore Vs Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

Meenakshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Salasar Tradeco Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Commercial Tax GST