ORDER : Since the issue involved in both these petitions is same, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. WPS No.6626/2017 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure P/14) whereby his application for regularization of his services has been rejected and in WPS No.6379/2018 the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.7.2018 (Annexure P/15) whereby his application for regularization of his services has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioners Uday Maan Ram and Gabriyal Ram Lakda were working as Caretaker and Chowkidar in the respondents department on daily wages against the regular sanctioned post since May, 1994 and September, 1992 respectively. Though in the year 2000 their services were discontinued, however, subsequently they were reinstated on the ground that discontinuation of their services was by mistake. One Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta whose services were also discontinued along with the petitioners, was also reinstated by the respondents vide order dated 6.12.2005 and 3.5.2006 but the department did not give him joining and continued with the case filed before this Court. Vide order dated 20.4.2010 this Court directed the learned Labour Court to decide the case of Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta on merits and ultimately the Labour Court passed order of reinstatement in his favour and vide order dated 24.2.2012 his services were regularized on the post. Thereafter, similar situated employees approached this Court and after interference by this Court, their services were regularized. The petitioners also filed writ petitions (WPS No.3409/15-Uday Maan Ram Vs. State of CG and others, and WPS No.849/2016- Gabriyal Ram Vs. State of CG and others) and vide order dated 23.11.2015 and 21.8.2017 respectively this Court directed respondent No.2 to decide their cases within a period of three months from the date of receipt of their representations. When their cases were not decided within the given time frame, they filed contempt cases and only thereafter, their representations were rejected by the respondent authorities. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs: WPS No.6626/2017 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quashed/set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/14) passed by respondent no.2. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs: WPS No.6626/2017 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quashed/set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/14) passed by respondent no.2. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Caretaker from the date when similar situated employees have been regularized with all consequential benefits as have been granted to similarly situated employees. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of circular dated 05/03/2008 and judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working, till the case of the petitioner is considered. 10.6 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition. 10.7 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit may also be awarded.” WPS No.6379/2018 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quashed/set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P/15) passed by respondent no.2 and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar from the date when similar situated employees have been regularized with all consequential benefits as have been granted to similarly situated employees. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of circular dated 05/03/2008 and judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working, till the case of the petitioner is considered. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition and any other relief as this Hon’ble court may deems fit may also be awarded.” 4. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition and any other relief as this Hon’ble court may deems fit may also be awarded.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents by which they rejected the case of the petitioners for regularization by the impugned orders is illegal, arbitrary and actuated with malice. At the time of passing of impugned orders, respondent No.2 ought to have considered the fact that the petitioners are working on their respective post since 1994 and 1992, though in the year 2000 their services were discontinued but later on they were reinstated stating that discontinuation of their services was by mistake and as such, there being no break in service they were also entitled for regularization like other similarly situated employees in terms of circulars of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 and 24.11.2011. While passing the impugned orders, respondent No.2 also did not consider the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer for regularization of services of the petitioners and only because they filed contempt petitions against respondent No.2, their representations were rejected with malafide intention. He further submits that the respondents have also not considered that the post against which the petitioners were working, is a regular sanctioned post and hence, their services are required to be regularized. The respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the circular dated 5.3.2008 of the State Government (Annexure P/2) which states that services of the daily wagers engaged during the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1997 shall be regularized. Since the petitioners have the requisite qualification and have also rendered the required length of continuous service in the respondents department as daily wagers, in view of above circular of the State Government, their services should have been regularized as has been done in the case of other similarly situated employees but the respondent authorities wrongly rejected their representations by the impugned orders. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the order dated 16.5.2017 of Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.1703/2015 in the matter of Tukaram Vs. State of CG and others, and other connected writ petitions. 5. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the order dated 16.5.2017 of Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.1703/2015 in the matter of Tukaram Vs. State of CG and others, and other connected writ petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently opposing the prayer of the petitioners submits that the petitioner Uday Maan Ram has not submitted any document with regard to his engagement as daily wager with the respondent department for the said period nor has produced any witness in support of his contention. He was engaged as daily wager from 1994 to 31.3.2000 only and was not continued in service as he was out of work from 2000 to 2004. Likewise, petitioner Gabriyal Ram Lakda was appointed as Watchman on 1.9.1992 by the Sub Divisional Officer, PWD, Jashpur but he was not continued on the said post as he remained absent from his duty and worked only from 1.9.1992 to 31.12.1992 vide Annexure R/1 and reinstated on 1.4.2004. It is denied that discontinuation of the petitioner was by mistake. Further, the petitioners were appointed as daily wager without following the constitutional scheme of appointment. On the applications submitted by the daily wagers for regularization of their services, a committee was constituted for regularizing the services of daily wagers who were working in the department from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1997. The circular dated 5.3.2008 is applicable to only those daily wagers/ad hoc appointees who were appointed on or before 31.12.1997 and continued uninterruptedly for 10 years till the date of consideration for regularization. After examination of record, the committee submitted its report along with list of daily wagers and since the petitioners who were engaged as daily wager did not complete the qualifying continuous service of 10 years, their names were not considered for regularization as per Circular dated 5.3.2008. He further argued that case of the petitioner Gabriyal Ram Lakda is different from the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta who was discontinued by mistake whereas the petitioner was wilfully absent from duties from 1.1.1993 to 30.3.2004, therefore, the said period cannot be treated as service period and he cannot be regularized. He further argued that case of the petitioner Gabriyal Ram Lakda is different from the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta who was discontinued by mistake whereas the petitioner was wilfully absent from duties from 1.1.1993 to 30.3.2004, therefore, the said period cannot be treated as service period and he cannot be regularized. As regards the case of Surendra Singh and Anil Choubey, they were working since 19.1.1993 and 27.7.1991 respectively and were never discontinued from service, therefore, they were not in similar situation. 6. So far as certain queries raised by this Court vide order dated 28.4.2023 are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents/State in their Additional Return submitted that Abid Siddiqui, Surendra Singh, Anil Kumar Choubey and Rajendra Prasad Gupta whose services have been regularized they were terminated as per order dated 30.3.2000 after paying retrenchment compensation. However, retrenchment compensation has not been received by Anil Kumar Choubey and Surendra Singh whereas the same has been accepted by Abid Siddiqui and Rajendra Prasad Gupta. As per records available in the office of the respondent authorities, petitioner Uday Maan Ram was also paid retrenchment compensation whereas petitioner Gabriyal Ram Lakda was not paid the same. The said order dated 30.3.2000 was not subject to challenge before learned MP State Administrative Tribunal at the relevant time. Further, vide circular dated 27.1.2000 (Annexure A) of State of MP, Public Works Department, Bhopal, services of daily wagers who were appointed after 31.12.1988 were to be terminated and consequently, as per order dated 30.3.2000 services of the daily wagers were terminated after paying them retrenchment compensation. In view of above, it is clear the petitioners were not entitled for regularization of their services in terms of circular dated 5.3.2008 and as such, both the petitions being without any substance are liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his Rejoinder in WPS No.6379/2018 submits that contention of the respondents that petitioner Gabriyal Ram Lakda after appointment on 1.9.1992 as daily wager was not continuously working with them, is totally incorrect and the document of Annexure R/1 filed by them to buttress their contention is forged and fabricated document prepared by them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his Rejoinder in WPS No.6379/2018 submits that contention of the respondents that petitioner Gabriyal Ram Lakda after appointment on 1.9.1992 as daily wager was not continuously working with them, is totally incorrect and the document of Annexure R/1 filed by them to buttress their contention is forged and fabricated document prepared by them. Actually, the petitioner was working with the respondents from 1.9.1992 to 31.3.2000 and discontinued from service from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2004 but during the period of discontinuation, he also worked with the respondents which is evident from copy of the muster roll for the period of 8.12.1996 to 14.12.1996; 3.8.1998 to 9.8.1998 and 3.4.2001 to 6.5.2001, filed herewith as Annexure P/16. The respondents have filed details chart from page no. 12 to 14 which is only typed copy but the same is forged and fabricated by the respondents. However, the petitioner obtained copy of original details chart and filed the same as Annexure P/17 which shows that from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1995 he worked for 3 years and 4 months i.e. continued from 19.1.1992. Therefore, it is clear the respondents suppressed the material fact and misled the Court by filing fabricated document. Hence contention of the respondents that the petitioner was absent from duties from 1.1.1993 to 30.3.1994 is denied for being a false statement based on fabricated document. Therefore, the case of the petitioner being similar to other daily wagers whose services have been regularized in terms of circular dated 5.3.2008, he is also entitled for regularization. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioners were working as daily wagers in the respondents’ department and for some time they were out of service. 10. The respondents’ contention is that the petitioners were out of work from 2000 to 2004. In WPS No.1051/2014 in the case of Mohd. Aabid Siddiqui, this Court directed the concerned respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Mohd. Aabid Siddiqui in light of Circular dated 5.3.2008. The respondents have admitted the fact that services of Mohd. Aabid Siddiqui and some other employees were regularized. 11. This Court in the matter of Tukaram (supra) in paras 22, 23, 24 & 25 of its order observed as under: “22. Aabid Siddiqui in light of Circular dated 5.3.2008. The respondents have admitted the fact that services of Mohd. Aabid Siddiqui and some other employees were regularized. 11. This Court in the matter of Tukaram (supra) in paras 22, 23, 24 & 25 of its order observed as under: “22. Now if we look into the facts of the present case, undisputedly, by now it has to be accepted that these workmen were initially appointed on different dates as mentioned in the aforementioned chart. Perusal of the said chart would reveal that all the workmen have put in a considerable period of time from the date of their appointment before they were discontinued in service and after the order of the Labour Court which in due course of time has attained finality they have also been reinstated. From the date of reinstatement also till date all the workmen are still working with the Respondents and from the date of reinstatement also they have put in a considerable period of time. All these workers have been slogging with the Respondents with a hope and legitimate expectation of being regularized one day. Based upon the judgment of Umadevi (supra), the State of Chhattisgarh also has issued a circular on 5.3.2008. The object of the said circular also was for considering the persons who had completed more than 10 years of service they should be regularized. The alleged order of termination of service of the daily wage workers was held to be illegal by the Labour Court. The effect of the termination order being set aside would mean that the workmen remained in continuous employment as if the order of discontinuance never existed. All these workmen as on date are all middle aged persons and would not be now in a position for getting a regular employment elsewhere. 23. Considering the fact that the Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the circular dated 5.3.2008 also being the circular of the State Government issued keeping in mind the welfare of the poor workers and has been issued for the promotion and welfare of the people ensuring equality and equity between the workers appointed on daily wage basis and the post against which these persons are discharging so as to subserve the common good that can occur to the workers for the long service rendered by the respective workmen. 24. 24. Once when we reach to the conclusion that the implication of the order of dismissal, removal or termination being set aside it has to be construed as, the workers would be put in the same position at which they were, but for the illegal dismissal, removal or termination order. If this analogy is applied to the facts of the present cases then all the workmen before this Court would squarely fall within the ambit of the category of workers who would be eligible for regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008. 25. In view of the legal precedents enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and also considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of these workmen for consideration of regularization in terms of the circular dated 5.3.2008 is just, proper and legal.” 12. It is also not in dispute that one Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta whose services were discontinued along with the petitioners was also reinstated by the Labour Court and his services were regularized on the post. Admittedly, the petitioners herein were also engaged with the respondents’ department from the year 1994 and 1992 to 2000 respectively. Along with the Rejoinder the petitioners have filed copy of Muster Roll and other documents as Annexure P/16 & P/17 which go to show that the petitioners were working the department as daily wager for a considerable period of time. Therefore, in light of decision of this Court in WPS No.1703/2015 in the matter of Tukaram (supra), the services of the petitioners also deserve to be regularized. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, both these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure P/14 in WPS No.6626/2017) and dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P/15 in WPS No.6379/2018) are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners on their respective post from the date when services of other similarly situated employees were regularized, with all consequential benefits.