YADUNANDAN PARCHEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 6
2026:CGHC:19247


2026:CGHC:19247
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3586 of 2026
Yadunandan Parchey S/o Late Shri Sadan Lal Parchey Aged About 53 Years
R/o Sindhi Colony, Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And
Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director Medical Education Chhattisgarh Old Nurses Hostel D.K.S.
Bhawan Compound Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Dean Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
27.04.2026
1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:

2 / 6
2026:CGHC:19247
“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly call for records
pertaining to service of petitioner, in the interest of
justice.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the
respondents authorities to provide petitioner permanent
status/absorption in his respective posts, with
consequential and monetary benefits, in the interest of
justice.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly set aside and
quash the rejection orders passed with respect to some
of the petitioners, in the interest of justice,
10.4 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is
appointed as Cleaner in Class IV post as Daily wager under the health
department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh.. Petitioner was appointed in the
year 2008 and since then he has been working continuously on the
said post. However, he has not been regularized on the post of
Cleaner. Therefore, he submits that petitioner may be permitted to
submit a representation before the concerned authority and direction
be issued to consider the same, expeditiously, within specified time
frame.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that she is having no
objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the documents annexed along with writ petition.

3 / 6
2026:CGHC:19247
5. Claim of the petitioner is that petitioner was engaged in service
as daily wage employee and is continuously working for more than a
decade. Petitioner has continuously worked for about 18 years as daily
wage employees.
6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent decisions have taken into
consideration its earlier decision in case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others , reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and thereafter considering the facts of those cases, in
particular engagement of petitioners/appellants therein continuously for
more than a decade, have considered the issue of regularization of
their service.
7. In case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others Versus State of
Jharkhand & Others, reported in SCC (L&S) 2018 (2) 472 Hon’ble
Supreme Court has considered the issue of claim of regularization of
temporary/daily wage employees, who had completed 10 years of
service. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Versus
Union of India reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 has further
observed that the government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee morale.
8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024] and connected
th
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) vide its order dated 30 January 2026

4 / 6
2026:CGHC:19247
has observed that respondent -State was not justified in continuing the
appellant's services on sanctioned posts for over a decade under
nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them
consideration for regularization and have further directed for
regularizing the appellants therein, in service.
9. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dharam Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735) has strongly
deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their
capacity as employers. Hon’ble Supreme Court also criticized the
practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to
evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures
perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and
lawful engagement practices and observed thus:
“17 . Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and the
State governments) is not a mere market participant but
a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on
the backs of those who perform the most basic and
recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after
day and year after year, the establishment must reflect
that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement
practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour
under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in
public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful
lines.

5 / 6
2026:CGHC:19247
18 . Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-
hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The
State Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why
they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned
posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is
invoked, the record should show what alternatives were
considered, why similarly placed workers were treated
differently, and how the chosen course aligns with
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional
discipline that should inform every decision affecting
those who keep public offices running.
x x x
20 . We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such
matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already
laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have
learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on
simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear
duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher
standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in
letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not
mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of
denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these
workers. The operative scheme we have set here
comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full
regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a
sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway

6 / 6
2026:CGHC:19247
designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm
that fairness in engagement and transparency in
administration are not matters of grace, but obligations
under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ”
10. Decision relied upon by learned counsel for the State in case of
Premsagar Chouhan (supra) is on different facts. In that case,
respondent department with whom petitioner therein was working have
issued a letter for discontinuation of their services and they were
subsequently discontinued which was subject matter of consideration
in that writ petition and therefore, decision relied upon by respondent-
State is entirely on different facts.
11. In the aforementioned facts of case more particularly the period
of engagement of petitioner as daily wage employee and recent
decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of regularization as
discussed in preceding paragraphs, this writ petition is disposed of
permitting the petitioner to submit a comprehensive fresh
representation before respondent authority seeking regularization and
if such representation is submitted, concerned authority shall consider
and decide the claim of petitioners sympathetically in an objective
manner, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of four months
from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Narendra Kumar Tiwari
(supra) Jaggo (supra) , Bhola Nath (supra) and Dharam Singh
(supra).
Certified copy as per rules. sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
alfiza Judge