C^1- r7s^ \^K-'^.'v^':'~::-:".f S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WR!TPET!TION(S) N0. s?^°>1 / 2011. PETITIONER: ^^/A .«>%y ^-/^y ..^ NN 4%^p .-•• ^ .•• "\ ^' y r ; ^,y 1. Masat Ram Ratre, son of Behan Sai Ratre, aged about 46 years, working as Waterman, Kanya Ashram Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Sadhram Yadav, son of Late Leda Ram, aged about 48 years,_working as Watemian, Kanya Ashram Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Filmini Tirkey, wife of Lipin Rain, aged about 35 years, working as Cook, Laxmipur Kanya Ashram, kapu, Tahsil Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents <'caM ^ 'ii fu Kj^ij.54 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^" 2. Assistant Cominissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector (Tribal Welfare Department), District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. Kushiram , son of son ofAmrit lal, Govt.Middle School, Kolamchitwahi, TahsU Tamnar, District Raigarh. ^ 5. Rajkumar Pradhan, son of Daulat Ram Pradhan, Govt. Middle Sehool, Taraimal, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2291 OF 2011 Masat Ram Ratre & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.Jayant K. Rao, Advoeate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 03rd day of May, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek regularizatipn to the post of Waterman w.e.f. 10.01.2009with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working in the respondent department on contract basis as daily wagers since 1-1-1989 to 31-12-1997 without any break, buttill date their services have not been regularized. Even the State Government has also by its letter dated 5-3-2008 directed all the departments to regularize the services of daily wagers, even then also no action has been taken by the respondent authorities to regularize the services ofthe petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. 5. It is evident that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, as without any advertisement or examination or interview, the appointments were c ! ^-""1. 1 i^c,^-SCf 6. made. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis on daily wages. Be that as it may, the daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others). 7. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court has considered the issue and held that the appointments ma.de c/e hors the constitutional scheme of employment as illegal. In para 53 of the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) (supra), it is clearly stated that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. In that event, only the irregularly appointed persons, who have worked against the sanctioned posts, may be considered for regularization, not the /7tega//yappointed employees. 8. The issue with regard to regularizatjon in the light of the letter dated 5-3-2008, came into consideration in the matter of Darbar - Singh Porte & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another4. This 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007(1)3cc 408 3(2008)10SCC1 42010(3)C.G.L.J.418 3 Court, after hearing all the parties, dismissed the writ petition on the grounds stated therein. 9. Any order/drcular, which is not in consonance with the constitutional scheme of employment or any judicial pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the above-stated cases, cannot be implemented by the direction of this Court. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ?fc Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok