Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Retired Driver’s Plea for Retrospective Regularisation and Pension Benefits

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 131 | 2026:CGHC:1034

January 07, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired daily-wage driver who sought regularisation of his services with retrospective effect and the grant of pensionary and other retiral benefits.

In WPS No. 8597 of 2023, decided on January 7, 2026, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that an employee who has already superannuated cannot claim retrospective service benefits when he was never appointed to a regular post during his tenure.

The petitioner, Punaram Sahu, had been engaged as a daily-wage tractor driver prior to August 31, 1987. After the post was abolished, he continued to work under the Janpad Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, on a contingency or casual basis and performed driving duties until his retirement on June 30, 2021. He argued that he had rendered nearly 35 years of uninterrupted service and was entitled to regularisation under the State Government’s circular dated March 5, 2008.

Sahu contended that the circular mandated regularisation of daily-wage and contingency-paid employees appointed before December 31, 1988, and did not require educational qualifications in such cases. He further argued that similarly placed employees had been regularised, and denial of the same benefit to him violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner was never appointed against a sanctioned regular post and did not meet the eligibility requirements prescribed under recruitment rules. The authorities had earlier rejected his claim for regularisation through a reasoned order dated October 14, 2019, citing lack of requisite qualifications and other eligibility conditions.

After examining the record, the Court held that the 2008 circular was an executive policy and did not create an automatic or enforceable right to regularisation. The Court observed that executive instructions cannot override statutory recruitment rules and that regularisation remains subject to availability of sanctioned posts and fulfillment of eligibility criteria.

The judge also rejected the petitioner’s plea for retrospective regularisation and consequential monetary benefits from 2008 onwards. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., the High Court reiterated that retrospective service benefits cannot be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre. Promotion or regularisation takes effect from the date it is granted, not from the date of vacancy or earlier service.

The Court further noted that pension and gratuity are statutory benefits flowing from regular service. Since the petitioner retired as a daily-wage employee and was never appointed to a regular post, he could not claim pensionary benefits as a matter of right.

Addressing the plea of parity, the Court held that equality under Articles 14 and 16 cannot be claimed in the absence of identical service conditions and eligibility criteria. Without material to show that similarly placed ineligible employees were regularised, the petitioner could not seek equal treatment.

Concluding that no statutory or legal right had been violated, the High Court dismissed the petition and declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The ruling reinforces the principle that long service alone does not confer an automatic right to regularisation, especially after retirement, and that retrospective service benefits cannot be granted in the absence of statutory backing.

Case Reference : WPS No. 8597 of 2023, Punaram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another; For Petitioner: Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate; For State: Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer.