Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 15 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Sixty daily‑wage employees of the Municipal Corporation Korba (named individually in the petition) filed WPS No. 4605 of 2021 under Article 226 seeking quash of the order dated 12 May 2020 (respondent No. 1) and direction to regularise their services from 14 July 2008.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Principal Secretary, Urban Administration & Development), the Under‑Secretary of the same Department, Municipal Corporation Korba and its Commissioner.
  • Background: Petitioners were engaged as daily‑wage employees from 1997‑1999 and have completed more than 20 years of continuous service. A list of daily‑wage employees (including petitioners) was published on 2 August 2011 showing dates of appointment and posts. The State issued a circular on 5 March 2008 outlining parameters for regularisation of daily‑wage staff. The circular has two parts; Part II (for employees appointed between 1 Jan 1989 and 31 Dec 1997) requires ten years uninterrupted service and a break of not more than one month in any calendar year.
  • Procedural history:
  • Respondent No. 3 discontinued services of daily‑wage staff; petitioners filed WPS 6112 2010, obtaining a status‑quo order on 28 Oct 2010.
  • The Department, on 14 July 2008, decided to regularise 35 employees appointed in 1998 onward.
  • Petitioners made a representation on 12 Sept 2018 to the Principal Secretary for regularisation; they filed WPS 7815 2018, which was disposed on 27 Mar 2019 directing respondents to consider the representation within four months.
  • Respondent 3, on 4 Oct 2019, recommended regularisation of 57 daily‑wage employees; however, Respondent 1 rejected the petitioners’ claims on 12 May 2020 on two grounds: (i) appointment after 31 Dec 1997, and (ii) breaks in service exceeding one month in a calendar year.
  • Counsel submissions: Petitioners’ counsel argued that the employees were full‑time, appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, and that breaks were artificial; reliance was placed on SC judgments in Dharam Singh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) and Prem Chand (2026 LiveLaw SC 394). Respondents’ counsel contended that appointments were after the cut‑off date, no advertisement was issued, and therefore the circular could not be invoked, citing Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.
  • The Court examined the circular, the service records (showing appointments between 1990‑2000), and the Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that the State, as a constitutional employer, cannot deny regularisation where work is perennial and service is continuous.

Final Outcome

  • The Court quashed the impugned order dated 12 May 2020 (Annexure P/1), finding it unsustainable in law.
  • It directed Respondents 1, 3 and 4 to re‑consider the petitioners’ claims for regularisation in light of the observations made, and to complete the exercise within 180 days from receipt of the copy of this order.

Topics: Regularisation of Daily Wage Employees; Public Service Employment Law