ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s) :- “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/direction and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and order dated 05.02.2016 may kindly be set-aside. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining tot he regularization of the petitioners. 3. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which is deem fit and proper.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 01.07.1996, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on daily wages and since then he has been discharging his duty with utmost satisfaction. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing and without any notice, all of a sudden, by oral order terminated the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation (Annexure P/1) before the respondent authorities for supply of copy of removal order, however, the same has not been provided to him and on 03.09.2002, an order (Annexure P/2) was passed re-instating the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities for his regularisation and in pursuance of the same, the respondent authorities prepared information in 22 column in prescribed format (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, when nothing substantial was done by the respondent authorities, the petitioner again moved a representation (Annexure P/4) in this regard and in pursuance of the representation, final decision was taken by the Department vide order dated 05.02.2016 (Annexure P/5) dismissing the claim of the petition for regularisation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory for the reason that the case of other employees who are at the same footing has already been considered by the Department, as such, the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the order was passed that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions as mentioned in circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/6). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the order was passed that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions as mentioned in circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/6). The claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of his service as daily wager in the Department, however, the case of similarly placed employees was considered and they were regularised on the basis of same recommendations but the petitioner has been denied regularisation, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raman Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2023 LawSuit (SC) 815 and Ravi Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2018 LawSuit (SC) 766. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not continuously worked with the respondent Department, thus, his claim for continuously working more than 10 years with the respondent Department is not proved and at present the petitioner is not working with the Department. As such, the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized in view of circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure P/6). Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was absent from July, 1999 till May, 2005, therefore, the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as fixed in the circular dated 05.03.2008 of the State Government and the petition being vague, baseless, devoid of any merit or substance, is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was working in the respondent Department as daily wage employee. As per the respondents, the petitioner has not continuously worked for 10 years with the respondent Department, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be regularised in view of circular dated 05.03.2008 of the State Government with regard to regularisation of employees working in the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. As per the respondents, the petitioner has not continuously worked for 10 years with the respondent Department, therefore, the services of the petitioner could not be regularised in view of circular dated 05.03.2008 of the State Government with regard to regularisation of employees working in the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. The petitioner has filed a copy of Form-28 which is in respect of salary and copy of certificate issued by Executive Engineer, which shows that the petitioner is still working in the Department as Skilled Labour (Driver). The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner on 14.09.2016 and according to the petitioner, he is working in the respondent Department since 01.07.1996 and at present he is rendering his services, which is evident from certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Raipur Division. 8. While dealing with the issue of regularization of employees, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi Verma (supra), held in para 11, 12 and 13 as under :- “11. The order of the CAT was unsuccessfully questioned in the High Court; Review Petition was also filed; that has also been dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the considered opinion that appo9intments were only irregular one, this Court observed in para 53 Uma Devi thus : “53. One aspect need to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA, R.N. NANJUNDAPPA, AND B.N. NAGARAJAN, and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments, and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and regularization of the similarly situated employees at other places and various recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory treatment has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi, they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve under the cover of court’s order. Illegality has been committed by not directing regularization of services.” 9. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raman Kumar (supra), held in para 8 as under :- “8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed service of more than ten years. Even this Court in the case of Ravi Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018) decided on 13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the services of some employees and not regularizing the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 10. Even this Court in the case of Ravi Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018) decided on 13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the services of some employees and not regularizing the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 10. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had applied for some documents under Right to Information Act and filed the same before this High Court vide Annexure P/9, according to which, similarly placed employee namely Devendra Kumar Chandel, who had joined the respondent Department on 12.12.1994 and worked till 31.12.1997 (total 03 years and 20 days), has been regularized by the respondent Department. Thus, in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to herein above and the circular dated 05.03.2008 of the State Government, the act of respondent authorities in not regularizing the services of petitioner is patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The services of the petitioner are directed to be regularized from the date on which the services of other employees were regularized and the back-wages and other consequential benefits etc., to which the petitioner would be entitled to, shall be paid to him within a period of six months from today.