ET IT IONER t (Appxicant) ‘ ES PO NDbAN '1‘ 3 (NonmApplicant) (g N PEII‘I‘IO U15 Vino§ Kmar Pipariya, aged about 23 years, tz/o Shrl L01: Nata Plparlya. Tame Keeper. O£f1ce of the Supdt. Engineer, M P Publi¢ ’vWo rks Department, r/o lllage Kodeva, V Post- Slkesa, Tans1l and Distt.Durg (MuP) S tate of M whyagP rades h; through : Supdt.Engineer, M . P . Public We $5 Department, ‘Durg, Diswicmhrg <M.P) «V‘ersusn (19) OF THE MALHYA PRADESH ADVIINIDTRA£$VE ¢ TRIBUNAL 13CT 1985 P R M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTHSGARH : B§LASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition {s} No.2291/3005 PETlTwNER: Vinnd Kumar Pipariya (Appiicant) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDEMEE (Non-appiicant) Present ShrIV G Tamaskal counselforthe petmoner Shn Bhaskar Payash: Pane! Lawyef for the Statefrespondent o R D E R QRAL) (Passed on 3'“ or May, 20m) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that he shouid not be remevec? from daily wage employment, and if removed, a direction for reinstatement with fuii back wages may be issued. The petitioner has also prayed that direotion for payment of arrears of wages ma also be issued. § . wage basis for a period of 89 days by the order of the Executve Engineer Public Works Depanment, Dung (Annexure P—i). (2) According to the petitioner, he was employed as Time-keeper 0% daily, ‘5 (3) Submissron of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the oetitroner is entitled for consideration in View of the Circular dated 15 054%? (Annexure P- 3) wherein Government issued instructions to the effect that those daily wage employees, who were appointed after 0?;Q5-1985, shall not be terminated from, service. The petitioner therefore prays that respondents may be directed to consider his case according to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Pubiio Works y Department Wark Charged & Contingency Paid Employees Recrmtment & Service Ru1e3, 1973 (For short “the Rules of 1973"). (4) Pef cantra, submission of ieamed counsei for the respondents is that the petitiuner was engaged on daily wage basis for a period of 89 days under the snarcity work without creating any right in his favour, The petitiener‘s eewicee were discontinued by the respondent from time to time as no ienger required dae to ciosure of rhe seareity work in the Department. At present, tne petitioner was not in sewioe. it has aiso been submitted that the petitioner is not a contingency paid empioyee but he was engaged pureiy ae e daiiy wage employee uneer the eearcity work and his wages were being ,., Paiu .1 frem the funds eveiia‘eie for tne scarcity werk. Circular dated 15~05—1§87 (Annexure R3) was epplice ie only in respeet of eontingency paid employees. (5) Admittediy, the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis for a period of 89 days Vide order dated 09-03-1987 (Annexure P-1). There was no regular appointment on any vacant sanctioned post by following the recruitment rules and there is no such averment to this effect by the petitioner in the petition. The petitioner, therefore, did not have any right to hold the post. Circular dated 1505-1987 cannot be made basis to submit that daily wage employees are entitledxto be reinstated in service, in View of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme CourLin the case of Secretary, State of Kamataira and athers vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (209,6) 4 SCC 1. Moreover, ciaim of the petitioner for consideration under the Rules of 1973 is not tenable in the eye of law, as the respondent has oleariy denied by stating that the petitioner was not engaged as contingency paid employee but he was employed temporarily for fixed days on daily wage basis under the scarcity work andrths wage was paid from the funds available for the scarcity work. (6) in View of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kernataira and Others vs. Umadew’ (3} and others (supra), Government of Andhra #radesh‘and athers vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 §QC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008)l10 SCC’1, the petitioner is neither entitied to be reinstated in sefvice nor regularization on the post of Time Keeper as ciaimed by him‘ (7) cost. Ww ohan Shrivastav5§ V j Judge The petition being devoid of merit is therefore dismissed. No orders as to i E Sd/— Manindra M i l WJMANE