Facts
The sixteen petitioners are employees of Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya (Respondent No. 3), having been engaged on a daily wage basis for periods ranging from 8 to 10 years.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 2On 26.09.2025, the petitioners submitted a representation to the university seeking regularization or absorption into vacant sanctioned posts.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 2Seeking a writ of mandamus due to the respondent's failure to decide on said representation, the petitioners approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are duty-bound to consider and decide upon the petitioners' long-pending representation for regularization in a time-bound and objective manner.
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 1.2-1.3Law Applied
The Court primarily relied on the principles of regularization for temporary/daily wage employees who have completed 10 years of service as established by the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others (2018).
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5The doctrine from Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), which emphasizes that government departments must act as model employers by providing stable employment and avoiding extended temporary engagements for integral roles.
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 5Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioners have been continuously engaged as daily wage employees for a significant duration of 8 to 10 years.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 5Applying the precedents of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Jaggo, the Court reasoned that the State and its instrumentalities must lead by example to prevent the undermining of employee morale and avoid legal challenges stemming from precarious employment practices.
Source reference: p. 5-6, para. 5Since the petitioners did not press the merits of the case but limited their plea to the disposal of their representation, and the State raised no objection to such a direction, the Court determined that an administrative direction for an objective and periodic review of the petitioners' claims was necessitated.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 3; p. 6, para. 6Holding
The Court held that the concerned authority must consider and decide the representation in accordance with law and the cited Supreme Court precedents within a period of four months from the date of receipt.
The Court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating on the merits, granting the petitioners liberty to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation to Respondent No. 3.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 6Original Court PDF
UMESH KUMAR SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in