47 HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB CHHATHSGARH: BILASPUR SIngle Bench: Hon'bte Shrl Satish K. Affithotri, J. WRIT PETI'nOH KO. 15SO OF 2003 Pctitioners ^;-"' : 1. Laxmi Prasad Soiu, S/o Shri. DiiKha Ram. Soni, fvged about 31 years, R/q Tifi-a, Bflaspur, District Bflaspur (C.G.). 2. Shivdutt Koushik, S/o Shri Panchcand Koushik, Aged about 44 years, R/o Purana Sarkarida, Lodhipara, Bilaspiu", District BUaspur (C.G.). 3. Bodhiram Bhoi, S/o Shri Dashrafh Bhoi, Aged about 32 years, R/o ViUage-Jaaji, Tahsfl-Seepat, District Bflaspur (C.G.). Versus Respondents :l. State ofChtiattisgsrii, Through: The Secretaiy, PubUc Works Departanent, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.). 2. TheChiefEi^ineer, Public Worirs Departmcnt, Bilaspur Region, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The Executive Eiigineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. The Executive Engiaeer, Public Works Departnucnt, Korba (C.G.). , ^8 Present: Shri R.M. Pandey, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (2nd January, 2006) Heard. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appoiuted as da3y wages labourers on 26,3.1992, 26.6.1992 aad 26.3.1992 respectivety ia the Public Works Department of thc erstwlule State of Madhya Pradesh. Services of the petitioners were discontinued by order dated 17. l.2000 (Aunexure P-1) issued by fhe Executive Engiaeer, PubUc Works Department, Korba, Dinsion Korba. 2. The petitioners have ffled this petition on 14.3.2003 praymg that the respondents be dirccted to reiastate the petitioner in semcc with baek wagcs. Each petitioners have been paid one inonfh salaiy ia lieu of notice, retrenchiuent aUowaace and gratuity ia total Rs. 15819/-. Services offhe petitioners were discontinued ia view of the poUcy decision of fhe State Ctovermnent, whereby atl the daUy ws^es labourers appoiuted after 31.12.1988, were reiaoved fi»m. fhe service. The petitioners have not acquired any right to fhe service as they have been workiag on daily wages. Services of the petitioners were discontmued on the ground fhat they wcre no longer rcquired in fhe dcpartment as per poUcy of fhe State Goverument f—— \ M 4 -l' i i^ -~\; Bablu 49 3. Learned counsel for fhe petitioners subxnits fhat several ofher daily wages labourers are stiU working, who have been appoiated after 31.12.1988. On perusal offhe Annexure P-8, it . appears that semce of the petitioners have been discontinued after appropriate scrutiny by fhe coinniittee. Accorduigty, fhey were paid one inonth's pay, retrenchinent atlowance and gratuity. 4. I bave heard learaed counsel for fhe pardes and perused papers appended to the petitk>n. It is cleariy establislied fhat the pctitioners were not appoiated agaiast aay substaative vacancy. Petitioners have not acqiured any r^ht to be appointed in the services as daUy wages labourers, as their services have been discontinued ia view of the goverrunent policy decteion as they are no lon^r reqiured. 5. However, ia the facts aad circumstauces the case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on daify wages laboiirers on seDiority and priority basis, iftfaeir services are required. 6. For fhe reasons stated above, fhe petition is disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatisU K.,Agnihotri Judge .. nl';'titiii!i(]|i[!rnp-7!i:i^l-s^';;.^^tFS^l^:-7%ws::^^S^-^^ '~' '-'---' :!--'s}''p-^v. 'f-^-s-ss^'SS'-S^Ss^S':