c9 wiza/ZA 1N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . w.p.(S) No. 59K! Z /2009 (s.B.) 5ing§egaaéii PETITIONER : Mahesh Kumar Janokar, S/o Late Shri Udayjéaanokar, aged about 39 years, R/o Karbala Road, Behind City Hospital, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1‘ ‘ The State of Chhattisgarh Through : Its Secretary Department of Labour D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Finance D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Labour Commissioner Office at Awanti Vihar, Near Anmol Apartment, Telebandha Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Deputy Director Audyogic Swasthya Avam Suraksha (industrial Health 8t Scurity) Opp. SBI, High Court ABilaspur (C.G.) 0% W t WRIT PETITION CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE OF INDIA 226 OF THE /V ~\\\\__ II I\ \ , \WVI. I\ 7\I\\ ‘\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5542 of2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shn Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri C.R.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ Respondents. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 25 day of September,2009) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent- authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and grant him the status of permanent employee. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on daily wages basis on the post of Peon in the ottice of Deputy Director, Audyogic Swasthya Avam Suraksha, Bilaspur, since 7m March, 2003 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to comply with the recommendation made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Administration) on 19m May, 2005, (Annexure P/4) as the petitioner was appointed on daiiy wages basis vide oriier dated 7m March, 2003 (Annexure P/3) and thereaiter, no steps have been taken to teguiarise the services of the petitioner. A letter for grant of sanction for vacant post has also not been considered til} date. Be that as it may, it is indisputable that the petitioner was not appointed ,/ :through any selection process and is working on daily wages basis. The f\t PETITIONER : Mahesh Kumar Janokar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Q/z appointment of the petitioner was dehors {he constitutional scheme of empioyment. 4. It is a trite law that 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 dehors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See : Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals L 6!.1, 0%ciai Liquidator v. Dayanand and othersz ). i 2007 (1) sec 4os ’I :. 2 (zoos) 1a scc 1 5. In View of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. l ' Sd/— ‘7 Satish K. Agnihntri t ‘ udge i c J