IHE HIGH COURT OE M.a^t-Tl'A PRAD:ESH AI J^ALPUR; WRIT PETmON N0. l: '-'Q /3.996 PETITIONERSs. '^ \J \ i Atmaram Yadavo son of Kayasthlal Yadav,"Time-Keeper, SADA, Korba, District Eilaspur» Mannulal Rathore, son o£ Arjanlal Rathore, Tj.me Keeper, SADA, Korba^ Distric-t Bilaspu.r. Nawadbalal Patel? son of Mohitram Patel, Tiine-Keeper, SADA, Korba, Dist.rict Bilaspura Rattavir Singh, son of Reedhramr 'rirne Keeper, SADA, Korba, District Bilasoiir* /? ^i. 's^ ?y\^^.. u % 1 to r/o Atit Provision Store, Near Nihsri Talkies, Korba, Sistrict Bilaspur (M.P.} VSRSUS RESPONDEHTs- ^" Special Area Developmeat Authority. (SADA)f Korba, through its Chief Execative Officer,Korba» Dis-tric-t Bilaspur* M.pc <<r ffi- ---"1.-.- cgs &s_mentioned in the cause title above. ic i:ii illlli :^i 'iji ffi; ^ f- s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1108 of 1996 . . Petitioners : Ataiaram Yadav & others Versus- Respondent : Special Area Development Authorily & aaofher aud Wnt.Petitiou No. 900/1996 Petitioners : Ravi Shankar Devaagau & another Versus Respondent : Special Area Developiaent Aufhorily & anofher Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri Slui Ashish Shrivastava, counisel for fhe Petitioners. Shri Saryay K. Agrawal, counsel for the respondents ORALORDER (15th Febmaiy, 2006) According to fhe petitioners, the petidoners were cm.ployed by the respondents on coatiageiicy basis between fhe periodfroiii 1985-86 on different aates. Admittedly, the petitioners have been perfonmni their duti.es as Tim.e Keeper ever suice, tiU date. The petitioners have filed this petition seekiag a wTit in thq nature of inandamus, ditteGting tite respondents to\regularize the serwices ofthjeij !1 petitkiners on fhe post of Ttme Keeper w.e.f their juiuors wpilelj regularized, with aU coitsequentiat benejBts of seniorily acd| mdDetaiflyj benefits. It is suhmitted by leamed coilnsel for the petiti^ncrs thdtj soiiie regular posts of Time Keeper are sttll awailab^ respondents have created soine posts of Tune Keeper. vacancyas aa 30.10.2000 was 11. !aitd.; WK IpositiOn] <(S li Bablu 6. Shri Sanjay K. ^rawal, learaed counsel appearirLg for the respondents, in fheir retum ffled on 29. l.2000, tias stated fhat m. fhe estabUsIunent of the respondents, fhere were 11 sanctioned posts of Tune Keeper and 9 time keepers were already wbrkiag on regular basis. He furUier subiaits fliat there is no regular post available for » • ' regularization of the services of the petitioners, who had admittedly been worldng ever since the date offheir appoiatinent, on contin^ency basis. Siace the petitioners have been workmg for niore tiiati 20 years on contingericy basis wifhout any break ui.their services, fhey hawe developed legitimate expectation of regularfeation iu fbe service. It is ckar from fhe facts ofthfi case that the respondent No. 2/Murucipali Corporation, Korba requires the seryices ofTime Keepers forever, fliej petLtioners appoiuted oa contiagency basis are required on reguIaiF basis. For fhe reasons stated above, the respondent No. 2 is dire-ctecllif" |to!l':i. consider fhe cases ofthe petitioneis in W.P. No. 1108/1996 aad tKp petitfoiier No. 2 iiamely Rameshroar Prasad Rathore in W. P. No. 900/1996 to regularize tiieir semces on the post looldngto ffie ayailabili<yofvacaxicies,m.accordaiicewithlaw. ; ] In view of tbe foregoio.g, fhe wnt-petttk)n stands disposed of. [Sp order as to costs. \ SatishK.Agnjhotri \^_Judge