Case Details: Rajesh Ratre vs. State of Chhattisgarh - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 446 (Chhattisgarh)[01-04-2026]
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
-
Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Aditya Tiwari, P.L. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioners were daily wage employees of the State who had been continuously working for about 38 years. They were initially appointed through a proper process against Class IV posts, but were never regularised despite long service. They submitted representations seeking regularisation, which were not decided, and therefore approached the High Court seeking a direction for consideration of their claim.
High Court Held
The State did not seriously oppose the petition and agreed that the authorities could decide the matter on the basis of the petitioners’ representation. The Court noted that similar issues had been considered by the Supreme Court, which has consistently held that long-term engagement of daily wage or temporary employees in a permanent nature of work should not be ignored, and arbitrary “ad-hoc” employment practices are discouraged. The Court referred to decisions of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Jaggo, Bhola Nath, and Dharam Singh, where the Supreme Court emphasised fairness, dignity of labour, and avoidance of prolonged temporary employment.
Relying on these principles and a State regularisation policy circular, the High Court did not itself order regularisation but directed the authorities to consider the petitioners’ case. It specifically instructed the State to decide the representation by taking into account their long service (about 38 years) and the relevant Supreme Court judgments on the regularisation of daily wage employees.
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State authorities to examine and decide the petitioners’ regularisation claim within about four months, in a fair and time-bound manner, considering their long continuous service and applicable legal principles.
List of Cases Referred to
- Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [2018] 8 taxmann.com 1094 (SC) (para 6)
- Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 (para 6)
- Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand [2026] 183 taxmann.com 59 (SC) (para 7)
- Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. [2025] 177 taxmann.com 556 (SC) (para 8).
The post HC on Regularisation of Daily Wage Staff with 38 Years’ Service appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
