Order : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P/9) and 18.02.2021 (Annexure P/10) and also to direct the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner along with all consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment i.e. 25.07.1989. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is appointed as Choukidar on 25.07.1989 on Collector rate by respondent No. 6/Block Development Officer, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The petitioner worked from 25.07.1989 to 31.03.2014. On 31.03.2014 his services were terminated by the Chief Executive Officer/Respondent No. 5 alleging that he was negligence towards discharging his duty. Thereafter, he moved an application before the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Mahasamund for condoning his negligence and prayed for reinstatement. Considering his prayer he was reinstated on 01.08.2014 by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund. Thereafter the petitioner moved a representation for regularization of his services to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara who has forwarded the same to the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Mahasamund and in turn Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund forwarded the matter to the Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service Development Officer, Vikas Bhawan. The matter was pending between government departments. 3. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Mahasamund directed Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bagbahara to constitute a committee for scrutinizing the case of the petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bagbahara constituted a committee who has ascertained the record wherein past record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration and also considering that since there was no regular post available and also on the count that he has been reinstated on 01.08.2014, therefore, case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P/9). Thereafter the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Mahasamund has also written a letter to the Development Commissioner Raipur mentioning the fact that since no vacant posts are available and also on the count that he has been reinstated on 01.08.2014 his case cannot be considered for regularization vide its memo dated 12.08.2021 (Annexure P/10). Being aggrieved with these Memos/orders the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Being aggrieved with these Memos/orders the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per circular issued by the State Government on 05.03.2008 the petitioner has already completed more than 10 years of service prior to his discontinuation from service, thus his case should have been considered. Secondly, he would submit that even if the posts are not lying vacant still the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024, Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 144 in paragraph 18 has issued direction to regularize the workmen even if the posts are not vacant. Thus, he would pray for quashing of the impugned orders dated 04.08.2021 and 12.08.2021. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and State support the orders passed by the respondents and would submit that since the petitioner was discontinued from his service, therefore, past services rendered by him have lost its significance for considering regularization and would submit that the impugned orders are legal and justified which do not warrant any interference by this Court. They would further submit that since posts are not available, therefore, no regularization can be ordered and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not come in rescue of the petitioner and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.07.1989 and has completed more than 10 years of service on 05.03.2008 it means he has completed 19 years of service, therefore, his case should have been considered in terms of circular dated 05.03.2008. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.07.1989 and has completed more than 10 years of service on 05.03.2008 it means he has completed 19 years of service, therefore, his case should have been considered in terms of circular dated 05.03.2008. The relevant clause of the circular dated 05.03.2008 reads as under: ¼c½ fnukad 01&01&1989 ls fnukad 31&12&1997 rd dh vof/k esa fu;qDr nSfud osru Hkksxh@rnFkZ fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;fefrdj.k%& ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk lfpo dukZVd jkT; ,oa vU; fo:) meknsoh ,oa vU; ¼2006½ 4 ,l-lh-lh- ds izdj.k esa fnukad 10&04&2006 dks vkns’k ikfjr dj ;g lkekU; funsZ’k fn;k gS fd dosy ,d ckj@,d le; ds fy;s 10 o"kkZsa ;k vf/kd le; ls fu;ekuqlkj Lohd`r inksa ij yxkrkj dk;Zjr nSfud osru Hkksxh@rnFkZ@vLFkkbZ deZpkfj;kas dh vfu;fer fu;qfDr (Irregular Appointments) dks fu;fer djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg,A 2- mijksDr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; eas jkT; 'kklu }kjk lgkuqHkwfriowZd fopkj dj nSfud osru Hkksxh@rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr deZpkfj;kas dh fu;fefrdj.k dh izfØ;k fuEukuqlkj fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%& (i) O;fDr] fjDr@Lohd`r fu;fer in ds fo:) inLFk fd;k x;k gks vkSj foHkkxh; Hkjrh fu;eksa esa fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ,oa vU; ;ksX;rk,a j[krk gks rks gh fu;fer djus ;ksX; gSA (ii) nSfud osru ij] rnFkZ :i ls vFkok dysDVj nj ij ¼nSfud osru ij½ tc fu;qfDr gqbZ rc ls vc rd ml in dh vko’;drk jgh gS vkSj vkxs Hkh ml in dh vko’;drk gks rks lacaf/kr in ds fo:) ,sls O;fDr dks inLFk ekurs gq, fopkj fd;k tk ldsxkA (iii) lacaf/kr O;fDr us nSfud osru Hkksxh ¼pkgs dysDVj nj ij½ ds :i esa vFkok rnFkZ :i esa fnukad 31&12&1997 rd yxkrkj mlh in ij ;k led{k in ij dk;Z fd;k gks ds laca/k esa yxkrkj dk;Z djuk ¼lsok nsuk½ rc gh ekuk tk;sxk ;fn izR;sd o"kZ esa dqy lsok czsd ,d ekg ls vf/kd dh u gksA yxkrkj lsok ds fy;s gM+rky dh vof/k esa lsok esa cszd ugha ekuh tk;sxhA (iv) fnukad 31&12&1997 rd nSfud osru ij vFkok rnFkZ fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkfj;kas dk fu;fefrdj.k fd;k tk;A (v) O;fDr ;fn dk;ZHkkfjr inksa ds fo:) dk;Zjr gS rks dk;ZHkkfjr in ij gh fu;fer fd;k tk, fu;fer in ds fo:) dk;Zjr gks rks fu;fer in ij gh fu;fer fd;k tk,A (vi) NRrhlx?+ yksd lsok ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr;kas] vuqlwfpr tutkfr;kas] vkSj vU; fiNM+s oxkZsa ds fy;s vkj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1994 dk ikyu fd;k tkos vFkkZr~ nSfud osru Hkksxh@rnFkZ :i esa dk;Zjr O;fDr ftl oxZ ls lacaf/kr gS jksLVj ds vuqlkj mlh fcUnq ds le{k mldk fu;fefrdj.k fd;k tk;s ,oa jksLVj esa vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNMs+ oxZ ds fcUnq ;fn mEehnokj ds vHkko esa fjDr jgrs gSa rks Hkfo"; esa gksus okyh fjfDr;kas dh iwfrZ vkjf{kr fcUnqvkas ds fy;s izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij cSdykx dh iwfrZ dh rjg dh tk;sxhA (vii) fu;fefrdj.k Lohd`r ,oa fjDr in ij gh fd;k tk,xkA bl gsrq ftu foHkkxksa esa vko’;d gks ogka lka[;srj in fufeZr fd;s tk;saA ;fn in gh dysDVj nj ij Lohd`r gks rks Lohd`r inksa ¼nSfud osru ij½ dks fu;fer osrueku esa ifjofrZr ¼l`ftr½ djuk gksxkA (viii) ifji= tkjh gksus ds ckn 'kkldh; foHkkxksa }kjk fu;fefrdj.k ds vkns’k ftl fnu tkjh fd;s tk;saxs mlh fnukad ls gh fu;fer deZpkjh ekus tkoasxsA iwoZ ds fdlh fnukad ls ughaA in Øe lwph esa buds uke vkilh ofj"Brk vuqlkj ,uCykd lcls uhps j[ks tk;saxsA (ix) mijksDrkuqlkj fu;fer :i ls fu;qfDr nh xbZ O;fDr;ksa dh vkilh ofj"Brk nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh@dysDVj nj ij] vFkok rnFkZ :i ls dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ds fnukad ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tkosxhA ofj"BrkØe fu/kkZfjr djrs le; ;fn ,d ls vf/kd O;fDr ,d gh fnukad esa fu;qDr fd;s x;s gkas rks muesa ls tks vk;q esa vf/kd gksxk mls ofj"B ekuk tk;sxkA From perusal of circular it is quite vivid that if an employee who has worked continuously for more than 10 years from 1997 his case should have been regularized as a one time measure in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Thus, the case of the petitioner should have been considered in the year 2008, still respondents have not taken any steps for regularization and his services were discontinued without any regular enquiry by putting certain allegations though subsequently, the mistake has been rectified by the respondents by reinstating the petitioner on 01.08.2014, as such also his past services rendered by him should have not been wiped up by subsequent discontinuation and reinstatement as prior to 31.03.2014 he has already completed requisite length of service of 10 years as required by the circular issued by the State on 05.03.2008 as well as in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the daily wage employee who has continued for 10 years of service without any intervention of Court their services should have been considered for regularization, still respondent has not taken any action which shows that they have acted in an arbitrary manner. Even otherwise it is well settled position of law that reinstatement means the act of restoring someone or something to a previous position state or condition. The word reinstatement is subject matter of interpretation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya { (2013) 10 SCC 324 } wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 21. The word “reinstatement” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II, 3rd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word “reinstatement” means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, “reinstatement” means ‘To reinstall, to re- establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office? To restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.’ 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. 8. As such also the past services rendered by the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents for considering the case of petitioner for regularization. 9. 8. As such also the past services rendered by the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents for considering the case of petitioner for regularization. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shripal (supra) has issued directions for regularization relying upon the judgment of State of Karnataka (supra) and all the judgment and in paragraph 18 in case of Shripal & anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 10. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 would submit that performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory in the scrutiny done by them but no document was placed on record to demonstrate the said facts. As such, the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory which disentitles the petitioner from regularization, cannot be considered accordingly it is rejected. Consequently, the impugned orders/memo dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P/9) and 12.08.2021 (Annexure P/10) are quashed. 11. In light of the above judgment and considering the fact that the petitioner has already worked from 1989 to 2014 and circular dated 05.03.2008 also provides that the daily wages employee who has worked for 10 years from 1997 should have been considered for regularization, I am of the view that this Court shall issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of circular dated 05.03.2008 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shripal (supra) within an outer limit of 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. From the cause title it is quite vivid that the petitioner is likely to retire shortly therefore, even retirement of the petitioner will not come in way against the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner for regularization as he has already completed 10 years before 2014 itself. It is made clear that respondents shall act in accordance with the circular and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court without prejudice to the fact that earlier orders passed by them have already been quashed by this Court . 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.