.^?-&^ 'f*^^^^- p,^^:vs^^""""" • _«»»^Ba^BD' ^•<--"k"' MtfM c ^-/^^^ .^ II_THlJIQNO^ABLE__HiaH COmT OF CHHATTISGA@ AT_BILASP^. QLj WRIT, PgTITION(S) lo. €^ IAI OF 2008 '(ryS PETITIOHER ;- BBSPOSBENTS '.- .*^> *<- ^cr<0-< ,<^^.&' ^^r ft^a^ S^ro Amod Kxmar Sharma, ehowkidar,Storage Centre, Bhanupratapur, DistsKanker(C.G), ex.employee of Chhattisgara State Co-operative Federation Sangh,r©sldent of Lattipara, Disfc: Kanker CC.G). Veraus^ 1. State of Chhattisgarhtthrough Secrefcary, Chhattisgarh State Go-operatiTQ ^"' Federation Sangh, Raipur (C.G). 2. Distriet Federation Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-operative ^ Federation Sangh^ Kanker(C.G)» 3. Regisfcrar, Co-operatiT-e Societies, Baipur (C.G), > .€ ^y^ yRII PBIITION I3NDER ARTICLE 226/227 OP THS CONSTITin'ION OF INDIA .!__. AP^ rtew^ HlGHCOyRTOC_CHHATTLSGARH_^ WRrTPET!TjONj{S)_N0.2419^F_20Q8 PETITIQNER Amod Kumar Sharma RESPQNDENTS Versus of Chhattisgarh & Others OJVrit Petltion under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitutlon of Sndla) Singte Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K«Agnlhotri, J, Present:- Ms Anju Ahyja, counsei for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. (ORAU (Passed on this 20th day of January, 2010) 1, • VVith the consent of iearned counsel appearing for the partles, the petltlon is heard flnaily. 2, By this petitlon, the petitioner seeks to chailenge the legality and validity of the order dated 26-2-2008 (Annexure - P/8) passed by the Additionai Reglstrar, Cooperatlve Societies, Chhattlsgarh, in . second appsal No.77(2) (1) 36/07 Vipnsn & Another v- Amod Kumar Sharma), Wahereby and whereunder the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 herein has been aliowed. The petitloner aiso prays' 'fbr hls reinstatement into service ali consequential benefits along with interest. 3. • The facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of the case, are by order dated 26-5-1995 (Annexure - P>/1) the petitloner was appointed as Chowkidar in ths rsspondent department for a temporary period of 59 days. Thereafter the sald period of 59 days was extended from tsme to tlme. By order dated. 20-11-1995 (Annexure - P/2) the petitioner was-transferred to Kanker, Dyring the seroice period,' GP.F\ amount deducted from hls pay as that of a reguiar emplovee, which is evlde'nt from Annexure - P/4. However, all of a by order (Annexare - P/5) the was from the service in an lllega! and arbitrary iTianner, 4. Being aggrieved by-the removaS o-rder, the petitloner preferred a case being case No.55(2-182(JV08 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, whlch wasallowed by order 2-2-2007 (A'nnexure - P/6) and directed for reinstatement of the herein. Agalnst the said order, the respondent No.2 herein preferred an appeai beiog appea! No. 77(1)/559/K/07 before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative .Socletles, whlch v^as disnilssed by order dated 28-7-2007 (Annexure - P,/7) maintainina the order dated 2-2-2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Thersagainst, the respondent No.2 preferred second the Additionai Registrar, Cooperatlve Societles, which ailowed by order dated 28-2-2008 (Annexure - P,/8) on the ground that the pelitioner herein was working in .ihe respondent department on dal!y wages basis. Thus, this petition. . 5. Learned coynsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the pefitloner was removed frorTi the service in an and arbltrary manner in spite of the fact that the petltloner ^vas contlnyoysiy v^orking in the respondent department and even the GP,F, amount was also deducted from hls salary as of regylar employe.es,. The Impygned order of removaS has been wittiout complylng with the princlples of natural justice. Leamed counseS furttier submits that the Additionai Registrar, Cooperative Societies, without consldering the fact that the Deputy Regjstrar and the Joint .N Registrar have passed detaiied and speaking orders in tavour of the petltioner, ai!owed the second by the respondent No,2 herein< ,.;!-^A, ^•s^!:, v.l> :i 'vsl^^B^ilt)^i !:i; t '-£;£s-^ ;!/ "T' '%- 6. 8. / 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the partles/perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Be that as it rnaVs a.temporary, ad hoc. empioyee^daiiy wager cannot cjaim reaujarization, continyance or reinstatement jn servlce on the basis of appolntment, which was temporary and not in accordance v/ith !aw and the same was de hors the const'rtutlonaj scheme of employnient^ (See Secretay, State of Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Qthers1, Drugs & P'nsrmQceutlcals LftA v. S4/or^CTe/?, /ndf'an Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Offscial Llquida^r v. Dayanand arKd others^ and Sfate 'of Punjab and Others v. Surjn Slngh and Others4').' Wlth regard to reguiarisation of the employees working' on temporary basis, the Supreirie Court in UmBdevi (supra), observed as under: s5Thus, It Is ciear that adherence to frie rule of equaiity In public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the ruie of law is the core of our Constitutlon, . a court would cQrtaJnly be disabled from passing an order ypholdlng a vlolation ofArtlcle 14 or in ordiering the ovei'looklng of the need to comply wlth the requlremersts of Article 14 v^ith- Article 16 of the Constitutlon. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public empioyment, this Court whiie iaying down the (aw, has necessariSy to hoid that unless the appointment is. In terms of the reievant- rules a proper competition among qualifled persons, the sannie wouid not confer any rlght on ths appolntee." The above ratio laid down by the Suprerrse Court has relterated by thls Court in Mim/am Xymar Verma & ¥. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 22007(1)SCC408 3(2008)10SCCT 4{2009')9SCC514 ,^^;^ '--.^ ^"^ ,"%, /''&-«^. % ll ^^1%1^< r ^ ^'""- Yi ^ \':'^€^'' @ of ChhsWgarh & Anothef'an^ Somsndrs Pratsp Singh v The of.MP. & othsrs Agalnst the order passed in Somendra Prstap Slngh (sup^), the petitioner therein preferredl a writ appeal beina W.A. (PR) No. 2077/2008, which was dismlssed by the Division Bench of.this Court by order dated 29.04.2008 affirming the order passed by the SJngSe Bench, Thereagalnst, the matter was taken upto the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petjtion being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Ssngh v. StatB of Chh& sgarh & Others), which was aiso dismissed by the Supreme Cou?t affirmlng the view taken by this Court, vide its order 23-3-2009. 10. This Court In Sanjay Patil v. Stste of Chhattjsgasf) & Anothe^- v^hlle deallng wlth slmilar issue obser^ed that "if the State Govemment has reguSarlzed some of the daiiy wagers, not appolnted in accordance with the constitutionai scheme. of empSoynnent, this Court cannot .Issue a positive direction to Segalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain lliega! appointments have been jegallzed/regyiarized by the employer. 11. !n this context, the Suprenne Court, in A^hok Kumar Sonkar v. UniQnofSnd!^, observed as under: "34. it Is not a case where appointment was irregular. Sf an appointmsnt is irregular, the same can be reguiarised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularity withln the meaning of tSie provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is iliega!, It is non est Irs the eye of law, whlch renders the appointment to b©a nuiiity." 3 VV'P (-S) No.1743 of 2009 deciGied on 28-4-2009 6 W.P.(S) No. 1347 Of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 or 2009 declded on 8-10-200S ' (2007) 4 SCC 54 • 8 / ^ 1-? 13. 14. 15. uS Further, In ofPunjab & atTOther¥. Su/jitSlngh &Qthers , the Supreme Court reafflrmed the above ratlo in the foSSowing temis: <?39.'We would, however, before parting make an observatlon the submjssjon of the Jeamed . coynsei fhat oniv because some jynlors have got the beneflt, t-he by cannot be a ground for the benefit to the respondents hereln, It Is now weil known that the equajlfr^ ciause contalned in ArticJe 14 shouid be snvoked oniy where ihe partles are simliarjy sltuated and where orders in their favoyr are and not It has a posltlve concept." !n vle-w of foregoing, for the reasons and applying the princjpies of !aw to the facts of the wherein the petitJoner purely on temporary basls, he is not to anv reSJef, Deduction of GPF amouot does not'regyiarize services of the petitioner'for want crf any order of reguiarizatjoo, For the reasons herelnabove, the impugned order 26-2-2008 (Annexure - P/8) passed by the Additionaj Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, is just & proper and does not warrant any interference of thls Court. in the resyft, the.writ petltion is dlsmissed^ No order aosts.. (iowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 9 (2008) 9 SCC 514