Facts
The appellants, qualified individuals appointed on a daily wage basis, have served the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, for over 15 years, performing clerical and administrative duties
Source reference: p. 5-6Despite the availability of 29 vacant Class IV posts, the respondents issued a notice dated 21.04.2015 to hire placement agencies/labour contractors to supply manpower for the same roles
Source reference: p. 6The appellants challenged this notice and the refusal of regularization in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 26.09.2025
Source reference: p. 6The present writ appeals challenge the Single Judge's dismissal, seeking quashment of the contractor advertisement and consideration for regularization
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether the appellants, having served for nearly 15 years, possess a legitimate expectation for fair consideration for regularization against vacant Class IV posts
Source reference: p. 6-72. Whether the Municipal Corporation’s decision to replace daily wage employees with contract labour via placement agencies is arbitrary and detrimental to the public exchequer
Source reference: p. 73. Whether the grievances of the appellants can be resolved based on the Corporation's subsequent undertaking to retain them in service
Source reference: p. 8-9Law Applied
The Court applied the principle of Legitimate Expectation and the doctrine of Fair Consideration in matters of regularization of long-term temporary employees
Source reference: p. 6-7It relied on the procedural mechanism of Undertakings and Affidavits filed by State instrumentalities to resolve service disputes
Source reference: p. 7-8The court maintained the distinction between the right to continue in service and the right to Regularization, noting that the latter must be governed by specific recruitment rules and applicable law
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The Court analyzed the matter primarily through the lens of the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, on 01.03.2026
Source reference: p. 7The Corporation affirmed that 25 of the remaining 28 employees were still working and would be permitted to continue in their respective posts as they were prior to the 2015 advertisement
Source reference: para. 9-10, p. 8The Court observed that this undertaking effectively addressed the primary grievance regarding the immediate threat of displacement by contractors
Source reference: p. 8-9However, the Court exercised judicial restraint by refusing to adjudicate on the merits of the Single Judge’s order or the absolute right to regularization, instead binding the Corporation to its statement that "necessary administrative steps shall be taken forthwith" to implement the court's directions in spirit
Source reference: para. 11, p. 8-9Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ appeals in terms of the respondent’s affidavit
The Court held that the primary grievance was substantially addressed by the Corporation's commitment to allow the appellants to continue in service
Source reference: p. 8-9The respondents were directed to strictly adhere to their undertaking
Source reference: p. 9The Court clarified that this order does not confer an automatic right of regularization; rather, the appellants’ claims for regularization must be considered independently in accordance with applicable rules and law
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Shailesh Dewangan & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:10988-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in