Tar. swam Ammxsmmxw TRIBUNAL 3 mm- JAB mm " o.A'.No ‘ 2 or'1994 ‘ Lmwsma. Qwio é" : ' Rajash Kumar $hama¢ aéea aboat 25 years. son of shri MahaVeer Erasaé 3harmawr/o Janékpum! Post & Palice 3tation Janakpur. m strict: sARGUJA.: 91.9 - vmw§ - mswmmms s state o£ Madhya z’radesh through ‘ 1‘3; Secretarywz P.w.D..va11 abh Bhawan;53mm!a. 2-31 Exacutive Enginaer.'P.W.'D. Manenaragarh Divi sien.‘ Manenéragarh.‘mstrict: { garguj a: ‘McPo) o Nae». 3‘.“ s.D.0‘.¢:P.w.D.. (384R) .wb raivision Janakyur,mistrict sargujao (MCPO) . \ wPLmmmN UNDER SEcTmH 19 or rim mmmsmmw ‘TRIBWAL AcwL 1985, ‘ / ‘ m .‘ . 1 ‘ " HEGH COURT OF CHHATTR$GH A? BILASPUR €H0n. Mr. Jusiéce Pyiténker Biwaker) Writ $e€iii€an {S} Nag?!) sf 2W5 ET§T§GNER Rajesh Kumar Sharma VERSUS REsPONDENTs State of MP. & others. Shn Parag Kotecha course! for the petmoner Shn Vwek Sharma PL for the respondents /State. WRE'F PETRTEON UNDER ikRTECLE 22$I227 OF THE CGNSTITUTEON GF !NDIA OREER (Gleamoe) Wit ’ihe consent 0f the counsei fer the parties the matter is heard finaHy. reliefs: in the instant petition the petitioner is praying for the feitewing (i; to issue an appropriate order/direction to the respondents authority that they shail allow the appiicant to worK as Time Keeper and the serwce o: the applicant shall be reoularized and seniority smce ms appointment in the year 1987 shatl be counted {:1) any other relief for which this Hon ble Tribunal ,‘may deem fit and proper in the‘circumstanoes of the case may also be awarded (iii) The cost or the case may also be awarded to the :7 , applicant A 4. Counset tor the petitioner submits that the petluoner wasl appointed as a time keepet in the year 1987 on datly wage ba3ls an the efnce of Publc Woms Department Janahpur He continued on l he post from 1 t 1987 to 3041993 but thereafter he was not allowed to work by an oral order He further submits that though the l petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis, it was againSI a sanctioned vacant post and recommendations were made by various i authorities for his further continuance in service. He further submits that the petitioner also made a representation to the competent authority on 26.71993 but even then he has not been appointed again. l h l ‘ @ 3. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that as the petitioner worked for a few years pureiy as a daily wage empioyee and he was appeinted just to meet the exigency of the department, he cannot cia€m reguiarization and seniority etc. He further submits that after refusal to work, the petitioner was not taken back in the emptoyment because his services were not required by the respondents. 4. tt is not in dispute that the petittoner was a daily wage emptoyee and he was not appointed under any statutory rule or agatnst a sanctioned vacant post, rather his appointment was just to meet the exigency of the situation which does not in any way confer a right on the petitioner to continue in service. Thus in these circumstances the petitioner has no right to 'claim either reinstatement in service or regularization and seniority etc. 5. Acoordingty, the petition has no substance and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/ /Pritinker Diwaker Judge /