(*>11 .i. 01 ^ v>' •/v' v^^— IN THE HIGH COBRT OF taBHTO. HIABBSH AT JABAUPOR PETITIOHBRS &ESPONBENTS ^^.A^iiS^;^,, /yy'--^^^ 'y ^^ ».'-;at sfiEiit; .., ^, lii ^ ^ ""^'^•s^w r'/ k <:?? /// \\^ '^ ^ ~"y^ ,;y I.P. N0, of 1993.•fz'G^i : 1. SBit» Radha Bevi Joshi» agea abeut 32 years, wife o£ Shri S.K.iToshi, by gGGt^ation - service, r/o Bdka Road, Balcr<%>ara, S Harayanpur, Bistric-fc Bastar. 2. Anil Kniaar Paadey, aged about 27 years, son of late Shri Satya Narayan Paadey, by eccupatien - serviee, r/o C/o Shri Shiv Kiuaar Pandey, Maia Road, NarayanpBr, Bistrlct Bastar. VERSUS ; 1. Tbe Krishi Upaj Maadi Samiti. NarayaBpur, Bistrict Bastar, •through its Seeretarya 2. The Officer lacharge, Krishi Upaj Maadl SaBiitit Harayanpur, Bistrict Bastaro 3. The Deputy Seeretary, Madhya Pradesh Kajya KrisM Vipraa Board, .Tagdalpur, Mstrict Bastar. PB'riTION UHBER AKTICIiE 226 ABD 227, CONSTITjUTION OS IiSB3I& !)" HIOH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition Np^_3918 ofl993 Petitioner Sint. Radha Devi Joshi & auother Versus Respondents The Krishi Upaj Maadi Samiti, Narayaapur, District - Bastar & others (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Slui Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. O RD E R (Oralt (Passed on this 19& day of November, 2009) Heard. The petitiouers, by tfds petition, seek to chaUenge fhe inemo dated 30.7.1993 (Document No. 3 A) and the order dated 11.8.1993 (Docuinent No.4), whereby their services were termiuated. The petitioners further seek a direction to fhe respondents to reinstate fhe petitioners in service wifh fiiU back wages and further to regularize fhe petitioners in. sendce. Leamed counsel appeariag for the respondents subinits fhat fhe eagageiuent of fhe petitioners was purely on temporary basis as seasonal clerk, Qn ttie basis of daUy wages. The petitioners were never appoiated iu accordauce witb the constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, fhe petitioiiers have no legal right to reinstatement aad regularization of fheir services. The nature of appoiatment of fhe petitioners appears to be purely as seasonal eniployee, on daily wages basis. The sam.e was not done in accordance with rules and as such fhe petitioners do not acquire any ri^ht to the post. It is weU settled principle of law by a catena of decisions fhat the ^ ^-v_^L^2i-. •'•::.»!?!."";%, '•%. 1 \:, ^J Thdmr !^ employee appointed de-hors fhe constitutioaal scheme of eiaployment and not in accordance wifh law, has no r^ht to continuation, reiastateinent or regularization in semce. This is also not the case of the petitioners that they were legally appoiated, ia accordance with law. It is clearly estabUshed fhat ftie appouitnients of the petitioners were not iii accordaace wifh law. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others1, Oflicial Uquidator Vs. Dayanand and others2 ). Thus fhe petitioners are not entitled to aay relief, as claimed ia this petition. However, siace fhe respondents did not give one month's notice to the petitiouers, therefore, fhe petitioners are entiUed for one montti's salary in lieu of temuaation fiom the respondents, ia accordaace with fhe tenns of the appoiataient order dated 1.4.1989 (Aiinexure Document No.l). Thus, it is dirccted that the respondents shaU pay one month's salary to fhe petitioners, as adiuissibte on fhe date of their termiaatiou from. service, wifhin a period of two uionths from the date of receipt of a copy offhis order. In view of fhe above, fhis petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge