^p^ S-Lf"S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMT PETITION No. 3603 of 2003 Naresh Giri Goswami VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others Post for order on ^^April, 2008. \: -' ' r;'l SdA ; SatishK.Agiuitatri Judge IS3, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Btt.ASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3603 of 2003 '"~f~ '^ PETITIONER : Naresh Giri Goswami S/o Late Bihari Goswami, aged about 40years, R/o Qr. No. F-55, Block-7, H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri (West) Distt. Korba, (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Ofhers Through Secretary, Water Resoyrces Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Sub Divisional Officer, E.M. Sub Divisional R & R Water Resources Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA. SB: Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Aenihotri.J. Present: Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govenunent Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on .. ^..^ da^ofApril, 2008) ' y ••/ I. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, fhe petitioner seeks following reliefs: "(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31.01.2003 and kindly du-ect the respondent No. 1 to take back the petitioner m service, (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ as the principle ofnatural justice is violated by not giving reasonable opportunity of hearing on merits of the case. (iii) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issiie any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions deemed fit in the interest ofjustice." 2. The facts as averred in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 07.07.1982 and worked as fitter upto 18.01.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from the service without any show-cause-notice by oral order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner made representations dated 22.03.1985, 24.11.1998, 26.04.99, 19.06.1996, 25.02.2002, 22.07.2002 and 19.12.2002 to the various authorities (AnnexuTe P/2 colly.) The petitioner, in the meantime, Bled an affidavit that there was no criminal case agamst the petiticiner. The petitioner made a complamt to fhe All India Human Rights Commission, Public Complaint •r <• r^ Department, Raipur. The authorities, by fhe impugned order dated 31.01.2003 (Annexure P/l) dismissed fhe representation dated 11.04.2001, holding that the case for reinstatement ofthe petitioner on daily wages basis is rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition for the above stated relief. The main contention ofthe petitioner is that the order oftennination was passed without affording opportunity ofhearing to the petitionCT, secondly, the rejection to reinstate the petitioner by order dated 31.01.2003 (Annexure P/l) is not supported by specific reasons. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that thesimilarly situated employees have already been considered and remstated in the service, without submitting details of the other similarly situated persons. Per conto-a, Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was working on daily wages basis and has worked from 07.08.1982 to 31.08.1984 as per the office documents and records. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent fpr about 12 years and appeared suddenly on 24.6.1996. The petitioner was engaged as Helper and no appointment order was passed in his favour. Accordingly, no order of removal was passed. The petitioner remained a^Sent himself for a long period of 12 years. It is further contended that the petitioner was never appointed on the regular establishment through proper procedure established by law, and engagement of the petitioner as daily wager was not in accordance With the constitutional scheme ofemployment. Having heard leamed counsel for the parties, perusing the pleadings and documents appended thereto, the petitioner has failed to file any appointment order indicating the nature pf appointment. Further, according to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, services of the petitioner was discontinued by oral order. Therefore, contention of the leamed counsel for the respondents that the petitioner remained absent for about 12 years as is clear from the letter dated 24.06.1996 merits acceptance. The nature of appointment ofthe petitioner is such which does not confer any right on the petitioner to the post. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that the employee appointed dehors the constitutional scheme ofemployment and not in acGordance wifh law, has no right to continuation, 1 reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not a case where the p^titioner has T O ^ 8. 9. 10. 11. established or contended with necessary documents that since other similarly situated persons have been recommended, there was a discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. It is clearly.established that the appointment ofthe petitioner was not in accordance with law. Reliance ofthe petitioner on the decision ofthe Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ofhers -is not applicable to the case as the facts ofthe said case was that 34 petitioners, who were daily wages employee of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society prayed for regularization of their services in U.P. State Electncity Board. The Society was taken over by the Electricity Board on 03.04.1997. Services ofthe daily wages employees of fhe society was taken over by the Electricity Board with a condition that the employees of the society will start working in the Electricity Board in the same manner and position. Thus, the Supreme Court held that the decision of the Electricity Board pennitting the regularization of the employees of the Electricity Board who were working before 04.05.1990 was violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution as the petitioners daily wages employee offhe society were all appointed in the society before 4.5.1990. The facts of this case is entirely differ^t as the petitioner has not established that there was any discrimination meted out to the petitioner and similarly situated employees have been regularized. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of G.B.Pant University v. Govind Ballabh Pandey & Ors. , cited by the leamed counsel would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even after granting regularization to the respondent-employees clearly held as under: 5. This Judgment shall not be quoted as a precedent by any other employee " In the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and others , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court with regard to the regularization, permanence, absoqation, continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wager or adhoc efflployees appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment, observed as under: "43. Thus, it is clear that the adherence to the rule ofequality in public employment is a basic feature of our constitution and since the rule of * 2007 AIRSCW 6904 22006AIRSCW4928 3 2006 (4) SCC 1 'r" '• •-) '• 12. law is fhe core ofour Constitution, a courtwould certamly be disabled ftom passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordermg the overlookiug ofthe need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this coiirt while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in tenns of fhe relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee......" 44. The coneept of "equal pay for equal work" is different from the concept ofconferring permanency on fhose who have been appointed On adhoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process ofselection as envisaged by the mles. This Court has in various decisions applied the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parameters for the application of that prinGiple. The decisions are rested on the concept ofequality enshrined in our Constitution in the light of the directive principles in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle cannot lead to a^ipsition where the court could direct that appointments made without following the due procedure established by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to treat them as permanent. Doing so, would be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before this Court, would not normally be used for giving the go-by to the procedure establishedby lawinthematterofpublicemployment......" Applying the well settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases cited above to the facts ofthe case, there is no merit in this case and the impugned order dated 31.01.2003 (Annexure P/l) does not warrant interference beingjust and proper. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Amit ! Sd/-. Sat^.^ 3udSe ibrtri