\^-7 .^< fi" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION N0 5-S'S Qp 2002 PETITIONER Laksl'mikant Koka S/0 L/V.K.Koka aged years^ r/o C/41,Yadunandan Nagar^ Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ .^^.^>:' •^%>S'A>' ^^•':J>'->'A. -^v ^' c^ ^^ 1^ . .1 %-' ^<B 1^^ State of Cnhattisgarh ^ through Secretary, DepartTOQQt of Houslng Se Environment^ Mantralayay^ D K S Bhawan^ Raipur (C^G) 2» Bilaspur DevelopEnent Authority through its Chief Executive - Offlcer, Vyapar Vihar^ Ring Road^ Bilaspur (C,G), 3. 4. Chief Executive Officer^ B<D,A, Vyapar Vihor^Rlng Road, Bilaspur (C^G), Canmlssloner^Revenue Bilaspur Division cum Chairman Bllaspur Development ^uthority^ Bilaspur (C.G). ^.TITIQN UmER ARTIC_U5 _ 226 READ WITH 227 OF THE CONSTITU- TION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI/ MANDAI4US PROHIBITION AND FOR ISSUANCE OF OTHSR SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS,__ORDER OR ORDERS. 1 T HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sin^e Bench: Hon*ble Slyi Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P.No. 553 of 2002 Petitioner Versus Respondents Lakshniikaat Koka State ofChhattisgarh & Others Shri Asldsh Shrivastava, coimsel for fhe petitioner, Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel lawyer for fhe respondent No. 1/State. Shn S.P. Kale, counsel for fhe respondents No. 2 to 4. ORAL ORDBR (17th July, 2006) 1. The petitioiier was eng^ged cn daily wages basis m tlie year 1989 aud he contmued to work for about 11 years along with other similarly situated employees by order dated 6,1.1989 (Annexnre P/l). Service of fhe petitioner was discontmiied by order dated 10.5.2000. 2. M.P Karmchari Congress representuig about 28 esiiployees filed a petition being W.P. No. 3843/2000 in the High Com-t of Judicature at Jabalpur, This Court allowed the petition filed by fhe M.P. Karmchari Congrcss aad quashed fhe im.pugned teroiiaation order dated 10.5.2000 by onler dated 15.10.2001. 3. Leamed couusel appeanng for fhe petitioner has produced fhe order dated 1.7.2006 passed by flie Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, BUaspur rcmstating fhe similarly situated dafcly wages employees ia compliaace wifh the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by tliis Court ia W.P. No. 3843 of 2000. Leanied counsel for fhe petitioner fiirther submits that fhe prcsent case is simUar as fhe petitioner was engaged as daily wages eniployee along wifh otiier siiayarly situated eniployees, who have been reinstated by order dated 1.7.2006 passed by fhe Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, BUaspur. 4. In flie Ught of para 53 m the case of Secretary, State of Karsaataka ai&d Ot&ers Vs. Umadevi (3) aad Othears, the State Goverament is directed to take steps for regidarization as a one-time measure. The Suprcme Coiirt m para 53 offhe Judgment in fhe case ofSecretary, State ofKarnataka and Qthers Vs. Umade^ (3) and Others {(2006) 4 Suprcme C^urt Cases 1}> observed thiis: <<53..,......, The question of rcgiilarization of the sei-vices of such employees may have to be considered on Dierits in fhe light of tlie priiiciples setded by fhis Court in the cases above referred to and m fhe light of fhis judgment. In that context, fhe Union of India, the State Goveminents axid their uistruinentalities should take steps to rcguladze as a one-tiuie xneasure, fhe services of such UTegularly appoiated, who have workecl for ten yeara or more ia dzity saactioned p^sts but not under cover of orders of fhe courts or of tdbunals and shozild further ensiire fhat regular recniitments are undertaken to fiU those vacant sanctioned posts that rcquire to be fiUed iip, m cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process laust be set in motioa wifhm six montlis from fhis date. We also claiify fhat rcgularization, ifmiy already made, biit not sub judice, need not be reopeued based on this judgment, but fl E Uiere should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirenient aad regularisuig or xnakiag permaaent, fhose not diily appointed as per fhe constittitional scheme/' 5. In fhe present case, admittedly fhe petitioner was appoiiited on daUy wages basis post and as such he has no right to fhe post. However, in fhe facts and cu'ciimstaaces of fhe case, fhe respoiidents arc dirccte.d to consider fhe case of fhe petitioner m terms of the order, as stated above passed by tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court in flie case of Secretary, State of Karnataka aad Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others (Siipra). The writ petition accordmgly staads disposed o£ No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge