Chhattisgarh High Court
CONT/1324/2026 of RAMESH CHANDA BAHESH Vs PRAKASH KUMAR SARWAY on 14 September 2026
2026:CGHC:40286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1324 of 2026 1 - Ramesh Chanda Bahesh S/o Shri Chaman Chanda Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Madhuban Road, Dayalband, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Santosh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Rajendra Dubey Aged
CGHC010321592026
2026:CGHC:40286
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 1324 of 2026
1 - Ramesh Chanda Bahesh S/o Shri Chaman Chanda Aged About 44
Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Madhuban Road, Dayalband, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Santosh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Rajendra Dubey Aged About 56
Years Occupation Supervisor, R/o Behind Lokswar Press, Khaparganj, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Sandeep Choudhary S/o Shri Bhuthnarth Choudhary Aged About 55
Years Occupation Supervisor, R/o Kranti Nagar, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
4 - Sujit Chouhan S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Chouhan Aged About 43
Years Occupation Sweeper, R/o- Nikhil Ashram, Atal Avas Bahtarai, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Nageshwar Beriya S/o Late Shri Tukaram Beriya Aged About 51
Years Occupation Sweeper, R/o- Manohar Talkies, Karbala Road, Behind Kali Mandir, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jivan Mahanand S/o Shri Ramesh Mahanand Aged About 40 Years Occupation Sweeper, R/o- New Sarkanda, Muktidham Chowk, Behind Guru Vihar, Atal Alas Maa Sharda Gas Godam, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Prakash Kumar Sarway, Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Petitioners
:Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 15/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Petitioners have filed this Contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed in WPS No. 706/2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after passing of the order petitioners had submitted representation before the respondent No.3 therein which was dismissed with the letter of information dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure C/3).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the reason assigned in the letter of information is the same by which the earlier representation was rejected on 15.01.2024. Once the order rejecting the application for regularization has been set aside, the respondent authority could not have rejected the representation assigning same reasons.
4. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as also the order subject matter of the contempt. Perusal of order would show that while setting aside order dated 15.01.2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing to respondent therein to reconsider claim of the petitioners individually for regularization in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others (Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018). Perusal of the earlier order dated 15.01.2024 rejecting the representation would show that the representation was rejected on the ground that applicants therein were not falling within the period as provided in the circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government. Annexure C/3 being letter of information issued to the petitioners would show that their name were again reconsidered and considering that the period of regularization of the daily paid employee and temporary employee is made pursuant to the circular issued by the State dated 05.03.2008 and the State Government has not issued any direction or circular for regularizing daily wages employee engaged after 1997 again dismissed the representation.
5. In view of above facts of the case, in considered opinion of this Court when the decision on representation has already been taken, it can not be said that respondent authorities have committed contempt of the order. Petitioners if aggrieved with the decision taken by the respondent authority, then, they are having other remedy available under the law for redressal of their grievances.
6. Accordingly this contempt petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi