'B^^UElltg^^AIEft HISH COmT OF C^TBBS,SARH, BBI^SP®. ^ / /2. W.P.SO. APPLICACTs /87z/200l ^' VBRS^. NON-APPLXC^Kt ,'MUDRIKA PRASAD MISKtA SON OF S(»I AWADH SHftRAN HISHRA aged about 35 years, occupation se Teraiiaatd rssident o£ Scieaca Goll^e Q.NO. 29 Tabsil &Distt. aaipur Cbatees.Sarh. 1. /State o£ Chatees Sa'h '-" t.hroagh the Seeretary edacatloa Bq>art!aent ^^ ••f";,???<B ^o' ^•^:^' &"" ^^^•^ •^^y^ ••••:^^-if"'' v^>-- 2. priBCiple secretacy Gowt. of Cbatees garb. 3. TfaeDirector of Higber education Raipar Chatees Sarh. 4. The RrlBGipl®<3ovt. Sclenc® College Raipm- Ctaatees Sarb. ^^ .^^ ARTICLE^/227 Q. COSSS^S-^ffi^ "tl 6" A.F^ ^1,3 .t' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR |t-!iS!| Writ Petition No. 1872 of 2001 Petitioner Respondents Versus Mudrika Prasad Mishra State of Chliattisgafh & others Sin^e Beach: HonTale Mr. Justice Satish K. A^iihotri. Shri Sameer Behar, couusel for the Petitioner. Shri Panlcaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the respondents/ State. ORAL ORDER (218tMarch, 2006) The present petition unpugns fhe order of termination dated 28.2.2000 (Annexure A/9), whereby the service of the petitioner has been teniunated on the ground that his service was no longer required. The indisputably facts, lelevaat in the case, are that the petitioner was initiaUy appoiated as daily wages worker to look after cycle-stand by order dated 31.3.1986 (Anaexure A/ l) for a period of fhree inonths on teinporaiy basis. Thereafter by order dated 5.8.1986 (AnnextU-e A/2), fhe petitioner was assigned the work of beU boy. Vide order dated 11.11.1989 (Anaexure A/3), the petitioner was appointed as night chowkidar. The petitioner was furfher assigned the work in the office of fhe Additional Director by order dated 2.12.1989 (Annexure A/4). Subsequentiy, the 2 , !lt!:sil!l[ wsv petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis for a period of 89 days by order dated 18.4.1990 (Amiexure A/5). 3. The respondent No. 4 regularized fhe semces of the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar by order dated 30.3. 1993 (Aimexure A/7) at a pay scale ofRs. 750-12-870-15-945/-. 4. The services of the petitioner was termmated by order dated 28.2.2000 (Aniiexure A/9) after a period of 9 yeara aad 5 inoaths as no longer requjred. Before terriiiuation orier was passed and given effect to, the petitioner was given one nionth's advance notice and payment of Rs. 16223/- as retrenctunent conipensation. The iinpugned termination order dated 28.2.2000, it appears was passed under provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Adnuttedly, it was not the case of even the respondents that fhe Govenunent Science CoUege, Raipur is an industiy. 5. Shri Sameer Behar, leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitioner subinits that the service of the petitioner, who was .appointed on regular basis, caunot be tenninated on the gr&und that his service was no longer required. Even ofherroise, the service of tbe petitioner would not have been terminated without proper show cause notice and enquiry, if any misconduct was alleged against the petitioner. 6. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learaed counsel appearing for the respondents subinits fhat the appointDient of the petitioner on regular basis by order dated 30.3.1993 was illegal. The circular dated 15.12.1992 clearly provides that Jlie daily llitlil .e(;?i(?;pd:, 9. wages einployees and casual einployees, who have been appointed prior to 31.12.1988 needs to be regularized but in fhe present case, the petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1990 vide order dated 18.4.1990 (Aiuiexure A/5) and as such no notice was required before passing the iinpugned temLmation order. I have heard leamed coiinsel for the parties and perused the records appended to the petition as weU as the retum. It is clear that the unpugned termination order was not passed on the ground that fhe appointment of fhe petitfoner on regular basis vide order dated 30.3.1993 was not in accordaace with fhe circular dated 15.12.1992. The impugned teriaiuation order, which was passed after a period of 7 years froxa fhe date of regularization states fhat the service ofthe petitioner was no longer required. The contents of fhe temiination order clearly iadicates that the order was passed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terms of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, which provides for payment of retrenchinent coinpeasation in case of Fetrenctunent of a worker einployed ia an iadustiy. Adnuttedly, the respondents that the Govenunent Science CoUegc, Raipur is not an industiy. Leamed counsel appeaiing for the respondents is not ia position to explaiu as to why the provisioas of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made appUcable for termmatnig the service of the petitioner and as such fhe impugaed order is not sustainable; Even if, it is presiuned fhat the appoiatinent -s«it® iS;3!i:B!liSau>' 12. of fhe petitioner on regular basis by order dated 18.4.1990 was not in accordance wifh fhe circular dated 15.12.1992, the petitioner was entifled to proper show cause notice before an order prejudicial to the iaterest of fhe petitioner tenaiaating his services, was passed. I have gone through the circulaT dated 15.12.1992, which provides that daify wages einployees aiid casual einployees appointed prior to 31.12.1888 bc considered for regularization. This circular 4ated 15.12.1992 has been properfy uaderstood aad applied ui the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was irutiaUy appouited on 30,3.1986 on daily wages basis to work as worker and ffaereafter fhe petitioner continued to work tifl his service was regularized by order dated 30.3.1993. Submission of leamed counsel for the respondents that fhe appointinent on regular basis was not in accordance with the circular dated 15.12.1992 is factually incorrect and deserves to be rejected. On fhe question of back wages, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner subinits that the petitioner was restrained by the respondents froni working as chowkidar, The impugned teruiination order was passed iUegaUy aad as such the petitioner was entitled to fuU back wages. The petitioner was not gatnfuUy einployed aiiyrohcre during this period. Leamed counsel for the respondents iu his response subinits that on the basis of the principle of "No work no pay", the petitioner should not be granted any back wages. 5 Bablu 13. The petitioner has specifically stated that he was not gaiafuUy einployed elsewhere. Having considered facts aad circuiastances of the case aad subraissions inade by leamed counsel for fhe parties, I am of the view fhat 50% back wages would subserve fhe interest ofjustice. 14. Accordingly, the petifion is aUowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to his service wifh iminediate effect. The petitioner is entifled to 50% back wages frova. 28.2.2000 tffl the date of remstatement. The retrenchment coiapensation to the tune ofRs. 16223/-, ifthe same has been received by fhe petitioner, be adjusted in the aiuoiuit ofback wages. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. A.gaihota tss'mv^