ARJUN LAL NIRMALKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/3234/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010122662026

Filing Number

WPS/7054/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

WPS/3234/2026

Registration Date

10-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

REGULARIZATION OF AD-HOC EMPLOYEES ETC. ( 602 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 22-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARJUN LAL NIRMALKAR

    Adv. SYED JAYED ZIYA ALI,Arvind Shrivastava,Arvind Shrivastava, ,ANUMEH SHRIVASTAVA,ANUMEH SHRIVASTAVA,Arvind Shrivastava

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.Chhattisgarh State Consumer

  3. 3.The President District

  4. 4.The President District

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

    The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the writ petition and directed the petitioner, a daily-wage watchman employed since 2009, to submit a fresh representation for service regularization to the concerned authorities. The court mandated the authorities to consider his claim within four months, keeping in view his years of service and recent Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that states must regularize workers in permanent roles and cannot perpetually engage them on temporary terms in violation of constitutional principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/3234/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the writ petition and directed the petitioner, a daily-wage watchman employed since 2009, to submit a fresh representation for service regularization to the concerned authorities. The court mandated the authorities to consider his claim within four months, keeping in view his years of service and recent Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that states must regularize workers in permanent roles and cannot perpetually engage them on temporary terms in violation of constitutional principles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case