1. Since the common issue is involved in both the aforesaid petitions, the same are being heard and decided by this common order.
2. The Petitioners have prayed for quashment/setting aside of the order dated 29.10.2013 in WPS No.6332/2014 and order dated 04.01.2014 in WPS No.6331/2014 issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization of service has been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions, are that on 01.05.1994, the Petitioner in WPS No.6332/2014 and on 01.02.1990, the Petitioner in WPS No.6331/2014 were appointed as daily wages employee in the office of Respondent authorities and had been continuously working for about 10 years. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh issued a circular on 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/2) for regularization of the daily wages employee who have worked from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 as daily wage employee in the respondents department. In compliance of the aforesaid circular, the Respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P/3) to all the Conservator of Forest for sending the names of the daily wages employee working under their control. Thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid letter, the Respondent No.3 sent a list (Annexure P/4) of daily wages employee for regularization, wherein the names of the petitioners were also find place. Thereafter, after receiving the list of daily wages employee, the Respondent No.2 sanctioned 53 posts in the Bilaspur Forest Circle for regularization of the daily wages employee and sent a letter (Annexure P/5) to Respondent No.3 for regularization of daily wage employee. Thereafter, in pursuant of letter dated 23.08.2008, The Respondent No.3 sent a letter dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure P/6) to all the Forest Division Officer directing them to regularize the services of the daily wages employees. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 prepared a list (Annexure P/7) for regularization of the daily wages employee, wherein the name of the petitioners find place at Sl. No.27 and 26 respectively, however, till date the petitioners have not been regularized and other similarly situated employees of Bilsapur Division have already been regularized vide order dated 17.09.2008, 04.10.2008 and 24.01.2009 (Annexure P/8 Colly). Thereafter, the petitioners moved their several respective representation before the respondents authorities for regularization of service in pursuance of Circular dated 05.03.2008 and order issued by the Respondent No.3 but no action was taken on their representation. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents authorities, the petitioners filed writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No.2296/2013 and 2180/2013 before this High Court and vide order dated 01.08.2013 and 25.07.2023 (Annexure P/9), the writ petitions of the petitioners came to be disposed off directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ claim of regularization. Thereafter, in compliance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted representation along with copy of order dated 01.08.2013 and 25.07.2013 before the respondent authorities and the Respondent No.3 conducted an inquiry in view of circular dated 05.03.2008 and sent its report to Respondent No.2. After receiving the inquiry report, the Respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioners for regularization holding that the petitioners have not continuously worked for 10 years. Hence, these petitions for the following reliefs:-
10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 Annexure P/1.
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim o the petitioner and regularize the service of the petitioner as per circular issued by the State Government.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to finalize the case of the petitioner for regularization of service vide memo dt. 09.09.2008, within stipulated period.
10.4 Any other relief or relief’s may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
In WPS No.6331/2014
10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 Annexure P/1
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim o the petitioner and regularize the service of the petitioner as per circular issued by the State Government.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to finalize the case of the petitioner for regularization of service vide memo dt. 09.09.2008, within stipulated period.
10.4 Any other relief or relief’s may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record hence, liable to be set aside. The petitioners have continuously worked as daily wages employee since 01.02.1990 and 01.05.1994 respectively and presently they are working as daily wage employee in respondents’ department and as per circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government, the petitioners fulfill the criteria for regularization of the service. Learned counsel also submits that as per criteria prescribed in the circular in respect of daily wages employee, the name of the petitioners have been found to be eligible candidate for regularization in list prepared by the respondent authorities and and also sent the name of the petitioners for regularization but the respondent No.2, without any sufficient reason and contrary to the report send by the department in respect of service of the petitioners, dismissed the claim of the petitioners which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent No.4 has already sent letter/ proposal to respondent No.2 for regularization of the petitioners after scrutiny the service period on the basis of office record but the claim of the petitioners has been rejected without considering the material facts and contrary to the policy issued by the State Government. Learned counsel further submits that other similarly situated daily wage employees working in the same circle who had been appointed with the petitioners on same date, have already been regularized but the petitioners’ claim for regularization has been rejected without any sufficient ground, therefore, the action of respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
5. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Sanjeeb Kumar Rathore & Anr. Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. [WPS No.514/2016 order dated 06.02.2018].
6. Learned counsel for State/respondents has strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that on inquiry, it has been found that the petitioner in WPS No.6332/2014 has worked on daily wages basis from 01.05.1994 till 31.12.2009, from March 2000 till June, 2004 and from August, 2007 till December, 2008, as such, he has not been continuously working with the respondents Department, thus, the claim of the petitioner is not proved. Similarly, the petitioner in WPS No.6331/2014 has been found studying in Class 10 and 12 on regular basis, thus, his claim for continuously working with the respondents Department is not proved. Therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is very specific in this regard and it is a speaking order in which it has categorically been mentioned that the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized in view of the circular dated 05.03.2008. In view of the circular/guideline for regularization dated 05.03.2008, the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized, therefore, their claim have been rightly rejected by the respondent authorities by the impugned order. The petitions are vague, baseless, devoid of any merit of substance, thus, deserve to be dismissed.
7. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2006/324] .
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. In both the aforesaid petitions, the petitioners have filed copy of list of daily wages employee (Annexure P/4), according to which, the date of starting work of petitioner Naveen Kumar Mehta in W.P.(S) No.6332/2014 in Department shown to be 01.05.1994 and the date of starting work of petitioner Naresh Kumar Patel in W.P.(S) No.6331/2014 in Department shown to be 01.02.1990. Further, in remark column against petitioner Naveen Kumar Mehta it is shown to be “From March, 2004 to June, 2004, in the year 2007, till December, 2007, and from January, 2008 till now.” Further in remark column against petitioner Naresh Kumar Patel, it is shown to be “At present from the Month of April, 2008 till today.” The Department, after scrutiny of record pertaining to the petitioners, has also sent the proposal for regularization of the petitiones.
10. In earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2296/2013 filed by the petitioner Navin Kumar Mehta, this Court has held as under :-
“The petitioner’s grievance is limited to the extent that the respondents be directed to consider his claim for regularization under the State Government Policy dated 05-03-2008 (Annexure P-1)
After going through the pleadings and documents, it is prima facie revealed that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee on 1-5-1994 and since then working. The respondent No.4 has already moved proposal for his regularization and the matter is presently pending in the office of respondent No.3. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner does not appear to be frivolous and requires consideration.
Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner’s claim of regularization, which is pending with the respondent No.3, shall be considered as early as possible and decision in that regard shall be taken. If the petitioner is found fit for regularization, necessary orders may be passed in that regard as per policy dated 05-03-2008 as early as possible.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed off.
11. Further, in earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2180/2013 filed by the petitioner Naresh Kumar Patel, this Court has held as under :-
“The petitioner’s grievance is limited to the extent that the respondents be directed to consider his claim for regularization under the State Government Policy dated 05-03-2008 (Annexure P-1)
After going through the pleadings and documents, it is prima facie revealed that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee on 01-02-1990 and since then working. The respondent No.4 has already moved proposal for his regularization and the matter is presently pending in the office of respondent No.3. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner does not appear to be frivolous and requires consideration.
Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner’s claim of regularization, which is pending with the respondent No.3, shall be considered as early as possible and decision in that regard shall be taken. If the petitioner is found fit for regularization, necessary orders may be passed in that regard as per policy dated 05-03-2008 as early as possible.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed off.
12. Annexure P/10 in WPS No.6331/2014 is a letter dated 01.10.2013 issued by respondent No.3. In this letter, the name of petitioner Naresh Kumar Patel was recommended for regularization and the aforesaid letter clearly demonstrate the fact that the petitioner is working since 01.02.1990 to 31.12.1999, and thereafter the petitioner again joined as daily wage employee from April, 2008 to 01.10.2013.
13. Similarly, this Court in writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No.2296/2013 preferred by petitioner Navin Kumar Mehta also directed the respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner and as per experience certificate (Annexure P/10) issued by respondent No.4, the petitioner Navin Kumar Mehta in W.P.(S) No.6332/2014 was working since 1994 till 5th August, 1998.
14. This Court in the matter of Sanjeeb Kumar Rathore (supra), held in paras 4 and 5 as under :-
“4. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the reason assigned not to regularise the petitioners is not according to the spirit of the circular based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) that the daily wage employees who were continuing in service for 10 years, should be considered for regularization.
5. It goes without saying that they should be treated as continued in service i.e. those who have been appointed prior to 31/12/1997 but continuing, their case for regularisation should be considered. There is nothing in the order of the Supreme Court to show that prior to 31/12/1997, employee’s service is required to be continuous.
The reason appears to be irrational and destructive of the very object of issuance of circular dated 05/03/2008 in view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in para 53 in the case of Uma Devi (Supra).
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 [LQ/SC/1966/151] , R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 [LQ/SC/1971/647] and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 [LQ/SC/1979/263] and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
15. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and order passed by this Court, it is clear that the petitioner Naresh Kumar Patel was working since 1990 and petitioner Navin Kumar Mehta was working since 1994. As this Court in an identical matter of regularization of daily wage employee, vide order dated 06.02.2018 passed in WPS No.514/2016, has already observed that there is nothing in the order of Supreme Court to show that prior to 31.12.1997, employees services are required to be continued, therefore, the reason given by the respondent authorities with regard to break of service of the petitioners appears to be irrational and destructive of the very object of issuance of circular dated 05/03/2008 in view of what has been observed by the Supreme Court in para 53 in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
16. Accordingly, the aforesaid petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in accordance with policy dated 05.03.2008 and judgment of the Supreme court without creating any impediment only on the ground that there were break in the petitioners’ service within four months from the date of this order.
