)ffs)(^°/Q> a" IN THB STATE ADMINISTRAIIVE TRIB13NAL W nADHYA ERADSSH AT JABAtPUR. o.<\- \ 37 APPLICAM Qopi Sharaa aged 28 years S/o Baaklsban 6« RBSPOKDSNT3 - (l) State Gevt.of Madhya Pradssh UA, Backward Tribe, Kalyaa ¥ibhag Ballabh Bhawan, Bhapal (K.P.). (2) Collector, Scheduled Trite/ Caste Kalyan Bibhag Durg. (5) Erincipal, Boys Higher Sebool, Dondl (Ourg). Motllal PSOB Ne haru C hhatrawas Sofflan peon, Govt.Mult:lpurpose Hlgher Seoondary Sehhol Dondl Arjua peon, Neharu Cbhatrawas Dondi (Durg). Application u/s 19 of tte Admlnifitrative'Frlfctoal Act 1985 A^& SII^T^I 'K;-ii.+ sn^i aniwgfta 'Svf -ciwivl-tf, gxil.y'iG. (sicii'yy SIT^T TR^ . W.P- (S.')^ \^^/05' *<l*<dl*Kicb"""""-^-<------'^ 200 .<? f^^sr' sii^i TRiiwgfsg SB : Hon'ble Shn Manindra Mo( 41^1<-<<il-) IIKcil' ^ fe^ <^^|< 4; aifs^iT an^r an Shrivastava. J. 04-03-2010 Shri Somkant Verma, courjsel for the pefitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel ^awyer for respondents No. 1 to 3/State. This petition has been'filec) by the petitioner aggrieved on account of termination from sen/ice. The ca^e of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a daily wages peon during the| period from 20th August, 1993 to October, 1996 in a Government hostel at ^atod. The petitioner has placed on record the pay data for the months of Ifebruary 1994 (Annexure-P/1), June 1395 (Annexure-P/2) and November 1995 (Annexure-P/3) to show that the work was taken from the petitioner frcjm time to time. It is further stated that the petitioner was thereafter disconti^iued from service and some other persons (respondents No. 4 to 7) were ei|]gaged. Learned counsel for th^ petitioner submits that as the petitioner worked for almost three years ^s daily wages employee, he ought to have been continued and the respor]idents have committed illegality and acted arbitrarily by disoontinuing the (|>etitioner and emptoying respondents No. 4 to7. Further submission mad^ by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had workec} for more than 240 days as daiiy wages .^x' /•'_;aa^ t?fi ggB»a3<8 ,^, -HC-22 an^r^ 'M'psii^; wqw^fta d-cd •<<l<<|ia^0'c||+<< . fclrtl^y TTO?[r^iffgR s^ ^S^K ,JrJ..:?.^lK-.-Ah.&6/ °'s~ 200 'f^^T' r/^ • i^ Wfe* •WRJfTt fest .(fqCT( ^sil'dtfan^ employee, he beoame entitle for r^gularization and the respondents are bound to consider the case ofthe p^titioner for regularization. Per oontra, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner was never appoirjted under the non-applicant/respondent and therefore, the petitioner couldjnot place any order of appointment on record. It is further submitted that |A>nnexure-P/1 is the receipt in respect of payment of wages made to th^ petitioner by the contractor and the petitioner was engaged by the |;oncerned contractor and he was not appointed under the Government ^ervice. have oonsidered the oon<ention raised by the learned oounsel for the respective parties and perus^d the records. As the respondents have denied that the petitioner was e'^jer appointed in Government sen/ice, it is the burden of the petitioner Vp establish that he was appointed in Government sen/ioe. It is for tt^e petitioner to prove that he had worked continuously under the Governnjent between the period from 20 August, 1993 to Ootober 1996. The pet|itioner has plaoed on record the pay data for the months of February 199|4, June 1995 and November 1995. From these documents it is found that the petitioner was engaged as daily wages employee and discharged certaji \rork. There is nothing on record to show that there existed regular v^cancy of Peon/Choukidar and that the ^-•.^t.-a» ^?sm5i-^ f ,<..,,.-3-;»'-^3a-HC-22 ^•q|S,;;"" ry' ^i. ~~'* ^ ^^.?i--..y^~ ' 311^1^ W an^i A^i'ft '^^3 Bini •7S ^fpVvW, 'S^IWTS. f^viwy. 3TI^?T TRrg? ^..^.A...(?:-^J..6.(rlZe flWWI ShHiqi •^ 200 'f^B^sr' Bss petitioner was appointed much presoribed for regular appointment In view ofthe decisions of trti Secretarv. State of Karnataka arid others reDorted in 2007 (11 SCC favour of the petitioner so as to cla service. In view of this, 1 do no' petition is therefore, dismissed. ^T'4E(r1^nt''T lll^^iT ^ fsl<i1 <FII-^K ^?3lf^R 311^1 in accordance with the procedure foT the post of peon/choukidar. <a |e Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in {2006} 4 SCC 1and (pfRcial Liauidator Vs. Davanand and 408 no indefeasible right is created- jn m his reinstatement/regularization in the find any merit in the petition and the Sd/- \ Manindra Mohan Shrwastavaf Judge | "'^