C'3 (y^ ^s^j^ c.? ^Itjrss r r ^Il^j f"1 1 ^yi.c Uk^Cifi IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. <1 K^ OF 2010 PETITIONERS ^ X<1 ..^ -<v/vn^' /3W .^.^;" ./ ..^/^" / ^^ / ^^ ^^ \\'i'i 1.^ Virendra Das Manikpuri S/o Late Shri Uday Das, Aged about 42 years, Working as Peon. 2. Tejuram Dhruve S/o Faguram Dhruve, Aged about 36 years, Working as ElectricalAssistant. 3. ^ Satish Sahu, S/o Kartikram Sahu, Aged about 34 years, Working as Sanitary Supervisor. 4. Kailash Uike S/o Pradeep Uike, Aged about 23 years, Working as Parichalak. 5. Ishwar Nishad S/o Jethu Nishad, Aged about 50 years, Working as Pump Operator. 6. "'Hemant Nirmalkar S/o Maan Singh, Aged about 28 years, Working as Clerk. I F Sunder Lal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Lakhan Dewangan, Aged about 37 years, Working as Sanitary Supervisor. S.^Ashok Dewangan S/o Goverdhan Lal, Aged about 36 years, Working as Clerk. 9.^ Poshan Lal Sahu S/o Dukalha Sahu, Aged about 32 years, Working as Computer Operator. lCf Lakush Verma S/o Moti Lal, Aged about 27 years, Working as Computer Operator. 11 Lalita Dewangan Wd/o Late Shri Mohar Dhwaj Dewangan, Aged about 32 years, Working as Peon. 12 Ashok Yadav, S/o Late Shri Mehtaram, aged about 42 years, Working as Peon, w^ ^^.»...^^^^.^.^.»£ cn ^^ 13 Mahendra Kumar S/o Aajuram Sahu, Aged about 33 years, Working as Sanitary Supervisor. 14'^Orendra Kumar S/o Shri Radhe Lal Sahu, Aged about 23 years, Working as Peon. 15<Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Ramsukh, Aged about 23 years, Working as Driver. 16^Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Kanta Prasad, Aged about 20 years, Working Electrical Assistant. lyPradeep Verma S/o Manrakhan, Aged about 35 years, Working as Electrical Assistant. 18 Gursewak Yadav S/o Roopram, Aged about 31 years, Working as Electrical Assistant. 19 Kishor Mahobia S/o Ram Prasad, Aged about 44 years, Working as Electrical Mason. 20"~'Lalit Sahu S/o Shri Jugat Ram, Aged about 35 years, Working as Pump Operator. 2F'Pradeep Shrivas S/o Goverdhan Shrivas, Aged about 40 years, Working as Driver. 22 Ramesh Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Sadhu Singh, Aged about 40 years, Working as Driver. 25"'^Ravindra Kumar Sahu S/o Panchram, Aged about 30 years, Working as Dirver. 2^'Kam Dev Yadav S/o Netram Yadav, Aged about 30 years, Working as Driver. 25 Roshan Kumar Sahu S/o Aleluram, Aged about 40 years, Working as Driver. v^ w V,:- \.c 26 Santram Lahri S/o Late Shri Samaru Lal, Aged about 34 years, Working as Santiary Supervisor. 27-<-^Tularam Dewangan, S/o Fudru Dewangan, Aged about 60 years, Working as Watchman. 2^Nandkishore Pargahi, S/o Dukhan Lal, Aged about 27 years, Working as Watchman. 29^Govind Dahre S/o Ramadhar Dahre, Aged about 30 years, Working as Watchman. 30' Rajesh Nag S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged about 32 years, Working as Peon. 3F Bajrang Verma S/o Bodhi Ram, Aged about 24 years, Working as Pump Operator. 32 Achal Das Manikpuri S/o Babu Das Manikpuri, Aged about 47 years, Working as Pump Operator. 33 Dharmendra Kumar Nishad S/o Bishram Nishad, Aged about 24 years, Working as Driver. 34 Ganga Prasad Nirmalkar S/o Banshi Lal Nirmalkar, Aged about 38 years, Working as Driver. S^Toshrao S/o Late Shri Sukalu Ram, Aged about 40 years, Working as Electrical Mason. ^^•" 36 Omprakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Dukhuram, Aged about 32 years, Working as Electrical Assistant. 37 Smt. Malti Manikpuri W/o Shatrughan Lal, Aged about 37 years, Working as Clerk. ^"" 38 Smt. Bhuneshwari Dewangan, W/o Punit Ram Dewangan, Aged about 30 years, Working as Peon. u^ w l^ •\c. 7 39 Smt. Kirti Verma Wd/o Late Shri Roopcharan Verma, Aged about 34 years, Working as Peon. 40 <§mt. Satrupa Dewangan Wd/o Late Prem Lal Dewangan, Aged about 39 years, Working as Peon. 4F Smt. Laxmi Dheevar Wd/o Late Shri Jethu Ram, Aged about 35 years, Working as Peon. 42 Komal Prasad Verma S/o Madhav Prasad, Aged about 31 years, Working as Electrical Assistant. 43<^Satya Prakash Yadav S/o Late Shri Lala Prasad, Aged about 32 years, Working as Time Keeper. 4<"Rakesh Singh Rajput S/o Ranchhor Singh, Aged about 24 years, Working as Time Keeper. 4S^ Amit Verma S/o Satanand Verma, Aged about 26 years, Working as Time Keeper. 46'"Rajesh Thakur S/o Shishupal, Aged about 34 years, Working as Time Keeper. 47" Hemant Rajput S/o Narmada Singh, Aged about 37 years, Working as Watchman ^•^' 48 Lavan Dewangan S/o Janakram Dewangan, Aged about 29 years, Working as Assistant Plumber Suneshwar Dewangan S/o Shri Bisoha Dewangan, Aged about 32 years, Working as Assistant Plumber. ^ 50 Muktavan Mahant S/o Puran Mahant, Aged about 28 years, Working as Plumber 51 Hemendra Kum.ar Verma, S/o Sunder Lal Verma, Aged about 28 years, Working as Parichalak. v^ CS3 P,,^..^\»Y /^,^^»1 -^">;'.'<|^-Tj ^ - |J W'7^/ ^...'^.. -^^"/^ 52'Santosh Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged about 23 years, Working as Time Keeper. 53^'Ghanshyam Nishad S/o Bishal Nishad, Aged about 26 years, Working as JCB Driver 54 Kalyan Dhritlahre S/o Sewa Das, Aged about 23 years, working as Parichalak. 55 Goverdhan Yadav S/o Late Shri Mahesh Yadav, Aged about 31 years, Working as Peon. 56 Nitin Dewangan S/o Bharat Lal Dewangan, Aged about 25 years, Working as Water Supervisor S^Son Sai Rajput S/o Late Ram Lal, Aged about 56 years, Working as Watchman. 5§_Sudhir Rajput S/o Brij Lal, Aged about 22 years, Working as Water Supervisor. 5&--Smt. Ganga Tiwari W/o Ram Sharan Tiwari, Aged about 38 years, Working as Peon. 6Q^,Smt. Duleshwari Sahu W/o Santosh Sahu, Aged about 37 years, Working as Peon. 6KUsha Verma W/o Shri Rajesh Verma, Aged about 35 years, Working as Clerk. r" 62 63 64 Smt. Pushpa Dewangan, W/o Posham Dewangan, Aged about 35 years, Working as Clerk. Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Banshi Lal, Aged about 33 years, Working as Clerk. Hitesh Pathak S/o Raju Pathak, Aged about 25 years, Working as Parichalak. u^ w //' .,.-• l v u ? y h Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o late Shri Rameshwar, Aged about 45 years, Working as Pump Operator. ^ 66 Shresht Rajalal S/o Lalit Kumar Lal, Aged about 35 years, Working as Peon. 67 Manglaram Dhruve S/o Late Shri Latelu Dhruve, Aged about 45 yeas, Working as Driver. 6&^Raj Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Prem Lal Chaturvedi, Aged about 22 years, Working as Parichalak. 69""-Tikendra Soni S/o Khem Raj, Aged about 22 years, Working as Pump Operator. 70"'Chiranjeev Sahu S/o \at€ Shri Niranjan Sahu, Aged about 29 years, Working as Clerk. 7F1 Ravishankar Yadav S/o Jamuna Prasad, Aged about 28 years, Working asPeon. 72- Hori Lal Nishad S/o Duklaha Nishad, Aged about 26 years, Working as JCB Operator. 7^ Ritesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Punahu Lal, Aged about 24 years, Working as Parichalak 7<"Nutan Patel S/o Late Ramdular, Aged about 31 year, Working as Electrical Assitant. ^-•-' 75 Ramkumar Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged about 40 years, Working as Peon. ^"" 76 Dwarika Dewangan S/o Dauharam Dewangan, Aged about 43 years, .Working as Electrical Mason. 77 Dilip Kumar Sahu S/o Kripa Ram Sahu, Aged about 25 years, Working as Pump Operator. p^ c^ ^ RESPONDENTS , 7f , /"^. "1-" ly-^j ^' ^->. - ^.•:A ./ ^g7 5^::.^ 7^Yadram Vishvakarma S/o Late Shir Chintaram Vishvakarma, Aged about 39 years, Working as Carpenter. 79 Puran Lal Verma S/o Ramcharan Verma, Aged about 52 years, Working as Watchman. SCTTukaram Tandan S/o Mehat Ram, Aged about 40 years, Working as Driver. 8F Vimal Sahu S/o Ishwar Prasad Sahu, Aged about 26 years, Working as Pump Operator. 82 Arjun Verma S/o Shri Pardeshi Ram, Aged about 38 years, Working as Driver. All are Daily Wages Employees working in Municipal Council, Birgaon, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^"'. 1; The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). r"': 2. The Under Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ^" 3. The Municipal Council, Birgaon, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Birgaon, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA tes A^^i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (8) No. 7450 of 2010 PETITIONER : Virendra Das Manikpuri & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sudeep Agrawal^ Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey^ Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Shrijith C.S.Nair, Advocate forthe respondent No. 3. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 10th day ofFebmary, 2011) The petitioners, apprehending their removal from service pursuant to the memo dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent No. 1, have filed this petition seeking cancellation/modification of the memo dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P/l) and further., to direct the respondent State to consider the case of the petitioners individually, if fresh recmitment drive for regular appointment are made. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the partiesjointly submit that facts and question of law involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court m Dhaniram & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others atad other connected matters wherein, this Court, after relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. ^> W.P.(S) No. 6798/2010, decided on 20.01.2011 ^':y%> /^^ •-% y ^^te^^.^ ^ Umadevi (3) and Others2 and State of Karnataka & Others v. M.L.Kesari & Others3, has held that the action of the respondent- Corporations pursuant to the memo dated 23.09.2010 for removal of daily wagers without proper scrutiny as per the memo dated 05.03.2008 was bad and the same was not sustainable in the eyes oflaw. The decision ofthe Supreme Court in Satya Prakash & Others v. State of Bihar & Others4 was not brought into the notice of the Court when Dhaniram & Others1 and other connected matters, were considered. In Satya Prakash & Others , the facts involved therein are different. In the said case, a writ petition was filed by the employees working on daily wages, seeking a direction to the State authorities to regularize their ser^ices in the light ofpara 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (3) and Others . The Supreme Court observed that the employees appointed illegally dehors the constitutional scheme of employment may not be considered for regularization. However, the other employees whose appointment is irregular, may be considered for regularization. Thus, the case of Satya Prakash & Others is distinguishable on the facts. In the instant case, the petitioners are not seeking for a direction to the State Govemment and the Municipal Council to regularize ser^ices ofthose who are illegally appointed, but for compliance of the memo dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Govemment, wherein it is provided that the case of regularization of the 2 (2006) 4 SCC 1 3AIR2010SC2587 4 (2010) 4 SCC 179 /f^ ^m^ ^^ '%... ^ s^^s ^ employees who have been working for the last 10 years, may be considered in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. The Municipal authorities, in order to save their skin., it appears, have been endeavouring to throw away all the employees without examining the facts asto whether their appointment was legal or not, in accordance with the constitutional scheme ofemployment or the same was irregular. The memo dated 05.03.2008 ofthe State govemment does not provide for regularizing all the employees working on daily wages or otherwise, but for scmtiny oftheir cases individually having regard to the several factors like availability of vacancies, their appointment against the sanctioned post and nature of appointment etc. etc. 71hus, the action of the respondent- Corporation to throw the employees without complying with the memo dated 05.03.2008 relying on the next memo dated 23.09.2010 is not sustainable in the eyes oflaw. This Court, in the matter ofDhaniram & Others has riot quashed either the memo dated 23.09.2010 or 05.03.2008 but the action, whereby under the garb of the above stated memos, the daily wager employees were removed, was quashed. The authorities, without examining their individual cases, as mandated by the State's memo dated 05.03.2008, cannot thrcw away the daily wagers or other similarly situated employees, in the light of the memo dated 23.09.2010 which, by no stretch of imagination, directs removal of all the employees who are appointed as daily wagers in accordance with law and constitutional scheme of employment and other similarly situated employees, without 8. examining as to whether they were illegally or irregularly appointed. In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd5, the Supreme Court observed as r under: "34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In E. Ramakrishnan v. State ofKerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the mles. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by . the Ser^ices Tribunal for regularising the ser^ices of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time. 35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr.) v. State of J&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularisation as regularisation is govemed by the statutory rules." The issue ofregularization was considered in AshokKumar Sonkar v. Union oflndia & Others , the Supreme Court held as under: "34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularised. The coUrt may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning ofthe provisions ofthe Act. But ifan appointment is illegal., it is non est in the eye of the law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity." The observrations made in Umadevi(3) & Others2 and Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd5, with approval, the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Others7, further explained 5 (2007) 1 SCC 408 6 (2007) 4 SCC 54 7 (2008) 10 SCC 1 I ^^11 %.. ". Jl "^^y ^^y:^'-^1' /-- ^ about the rights of the daily wagers and regularization. Para 70 reads as under: "70. The shift in the Court's approach became more prominent in A. Umarani v. Coop. Societies, decided by a three-Judge Bench, wherein it was held that the State cannot invoke Article 162 ofthe Constitution for regularisation ofthe appointments made in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions." 9. For the reasons stated in Dhaniram & Others1 and further., in view of the above, the respondent authorities are directed to scrutinize case of each and every individual, as per the memo dated 05.03.2008 and in the light ofthe well settled principles oflaw, as aforestated. 10. It must be made clear, in view of the above that this Court is not directing to retain the employees who have been illegally appointed dehors the constitutional scheme of employment. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Kl' \mit