Regularization of service can only be prospective and not retrospective; the court upholds established Supreme Court precedent restricting retrospective seniority and pay benefits for regularized employees. This decision affirms prior precedent, binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh, and clarifies the legal position for public sector and government service employment disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/692/2025 of NEHRU LAL SARAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010387402025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding within territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents; upholds Single Judge’s order |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Regularization of employment, pay fixation, seniority) |
| Questions of Law | Whether regularization of casual/daily wage employees can be ordered with retrospective effect, including pay and seniority from initial appointment, or must be prospective only. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reaffirmed that regularization of casual/daily wage employees is a matter of policy and can only be ordered prospectively, not retrospectively. This stance is based on multiple Supreme Court decisions, which reason that retrospective regularization may unfairly disrupt the seniority and service conditions of regularly appointed employees. The interim period prior to regularization cannot confer seniority or pay scale benefits, and judicial interference in policy-based cut-off dates for regularization is unwarranted unless manifest illegality is demonstrated. The court declined interference with the Single Judge’s order dismissing a similar claim. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents limiting retrospective regularization; policy considerations regarding seniority and administrative fairness. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, initially appointed as a contingency employee/peon in 1997 on ad-hoc basis, was regularized in 2009. He claimed regular pay scale and seniority from his initial appointment, citing departmental orders and judicial precedents. The department denied these benefits, leading to his writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The dismissal was challenged in this appeal, citing similar reliefs granted to other employees and a recent Supreme Court order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh; applicable to public employment regularization disputes |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and quasi-judicial employment tribunals |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has reiterated that regularization of service for daily wage/casual employees must be prospective and not retrospective, aligning strictly with prior Supreme Court guidelines.
- Even if departmental orders granted retrospective benefits to some employees, judicial orders for retrospection are subject to policy and precedent.
- Regardless of submissions of past departmental circulars or other regularized cases, courts are reluctant to interfere unless manifest illegality or arbitrary discrimination is established.
- Simply pointing to departmental inconsistencies or similar benefits granted to other employees post-1988 is insufficient to override judicial precedent.
- Distinction between regularization date and date of initial appointment continues to be decisive for seniority and pay scale claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench reviewed the Single Judge’s order and the materials placed by the appellant, including prior departmental orders and alleged precedents granting retrospective benefits.
- The Single Judge’s reliance on Supreme Court judgments (Vikau K. Dhand, Swaran Singh, and Sheela Rani) was affirmed; these decisions categorically state that regularization should be prospective to avoid disruption in seniority and administrative fairness.
- The Supreme Court reasoning, followed by the High Court, is that regularization from the date of initial appointment risks upsetting the seniority of regularly appointed employees and invites administrative chaos.
- Judicial interference in executive or policy matters regarding the effective date of regularization is limited unless there is a statutory right or manifest arbitrariness.
- The Division Bench found no palpable infirmity or perversity in the Single Judge’s approach and thus dismissed the appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and overlooks departmental orders granting retrospective pay and seniority to similar post-1988 appointees.
- Departmental and judicial precedents (including recent Supreme Court orders) were cited as ground for claiming parity and retrospective benefit.
- The action taken violates constitutional provisions of equality (Article 14), right to life (Article 21), and equal pay for equal work (Article 39(d)).
- Submitted relevant documents showing similar benefits granted to others and argued no legal provision exists to deny claim.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the Single Judge’s order as just and proper, asserting full consideration of all relevant facts and law.
- Opposed the petitioner’s claims and argued no interference is warranted by the appellate court.
Factual Background
The appellant was initially appointed as a contingency employee (peon) on an ad-hoc basis in 1997, with successive extensions, and was regularized in service in 2009. He sought regular pay scale and seniority from the date of initial appointment, referencing departmental orders and decisions granting such benefits to others appointed after 1988. The department denied his representations despite similar benefits given to others. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his writ petition, upholding the denial of retrospective benefit. This appeal challenges that decision.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment addresses service jurisprudence surrounding regularization, pay fixation, and seniority, but focuses primarily on judicial precedent rather than direct statutory interpretation.
- Considers constitutional mandates of equality (Art. 14), right to life (Art. 21), and equal pay for equal work (Art. 39(d)), but affirms that policy-based cut-off dates for regularization are not arbitrary if in line with apex court guidance.
- No statutory provision was read down or expansively interpreted; reliance was placed on policy orders, departmental circulars, and governing judicial precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion; Division Bench delivered a unanimous judgment.
Procedural Innovations
Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed; otherwise, no new procedural rules or innovations were laid down.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law affirmed, specifically Supreme Court authority restricting retrospective regularization.