Kamal Sutradhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010404432022

2026:CGHC:29411

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 8852 of 2022

¶8

1 - Kamal Sutradhar S/o Late Sudhan Sutradhar Aged About 56 Years R/o Dharampura- 1, Near Ashoka Park, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Director Of Technical Education, Chattisgarh, Government Girls Polytechnic, Bairan Bazar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Commissioner- Cum- Director Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Department, 4th Floor Block- Iii, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C. G.) Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Principal Government Girls Polytechnic College, Dharampura- Ii, Jagdalpur (C. G.)

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner/s	: Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

13.07.2026

¶18

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶19

2

¶20

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P/1)

¶21

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondents to consider presentation of Petitioner regarding regularization on the post in pursuance of circular dt. 05.03.2008.

¶22

10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to directed Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for regularization taking into account of seniority.”

¶23

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was engaged under respondent No.3 as a daily-rated employee on 2.5.1991. He would contend that the petitioner submitted various applications claiming therein regularization of his services, but respondent No.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 17.11.2022 interalia on the ground that the petitioner had not worked continuously on a particular post till 31.12.1997 and thus, rejected his claim. He would invite the attention of this court to the enquiry conducted by a committee, wherein it was held that the petitioner had not worked on a particular post and therefore, his case could not be considered for regularization. He would further submit that according to circular dated 5.3.2018, if a dailywage employee has continuously worked for a period of 10 years, his case should be considered for regularization. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶24

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

3

¶26

He would submit that as the petitioner did not work on a particular post for a period of 10 years, therefore, he has not been considered for regularization. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

5) A perusal of the report dated 15.11.2022 submitted by the Committee would make it clear that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he did not work on a particular post till 31.12.1997. The respondents failed to explain relevant criteria prescribed in policy. A perusal of the documents would further reveal that the petitioner was engaged with the department on 2.5.1991 and is still working there. The petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service under the respondents, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 74237429 of 2018, particularly paragraph 10, which reads as under:-

¶29

“10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be

¶30

4

¶31

given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularized unless there is some valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc.”

¶32

6) Considering the fact that the petitioner has been working with the respondent authorities since 1991 and is still in service, and therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly, the order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed, and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

7) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶35

Nimmi

Kamal Sutradhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Sutradhar 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

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

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh