IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.} w. P. (S) No. 63?? 12096 PETITIONER : Anand Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Chauhan, Age about 49 years, R/o Sarjubagicha, Masanganj, Azad Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA z VERSUS $6“) We} RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh x‘ l Through :— Secreialy, Department af Water Resources Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, ,r Department of Water Resources fé" JL Raipur (C.G.) /00 l.”){ se‘ cy r2 s 3. Superintending Engineerx“ c y Department of Water Resources Hasdeo Kachhar,Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineerv/ Vidyut/Yantriki Light Machinary Naikup & Gets, Division Biiaspur, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) K b } HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILAsPUR Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Swish K. Agniho‘h'i. J. W. P.($) No. 5379 of 2006 Pe‘ri'rioner : Anand Singh Chauhan Versus Respondenfs : Smfe of Chha'rfisgarh 6: Ofhers Shri 5.P. Kale, counsel for 'rhe pefi'rioner. 5hri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for The responden‘fs. ORDER (6* ombzr, zoos) Learned counse! for 'H'Ie pe‘Mioner submi'l’s 'rha‘r the pe'rifioner was appoin‘fed prior to 31.12.1988 and a‘t presenf he is working as Labour (class-IV emp1oyee) in 'rhe respondenf/deparfmen‘r as daily wager. 2. The pe'ri'lioner- has filed This pefifion praying for a relief in terms of fhe judgmen‘r and order passed by fhe Supreme Cour'f in fhe case of Secretary, Stale of Kamafaka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ofhers‘ and Mineral Explora‘i-ion Corporation Employees‘ Union v. n Mineral Exploration Corporation Limifed & Annz 3. The Supreme Cour-r in the case of Secretary. Sfai'e of Kama‘raka and Others (aipra), in para 53 has held as under: “53. ...........The quesfion of regularizafion of fhe services of such J employees may have To be considered on meri'rs in the lighi' of fhe principles se'rfled by ihis Cour'i’ in 'rhe eases abovereferred ‘i'o and in 'rhe lighf of Thisrjudgmenf. In 'iha‘i' confexi', The Union of India, 1'he Sfai'e Governmenis and Their instrumen'l’ali‘i'ies (W should fake sfeps 1'0 regularize as a one-fime measure, fhe services of such irregularly appoinfed, who have worked for fen years or more in duly sancfioned posfs buf nof under cover of orders of fhe cour‘rs or of fribunals and §wuid fur'l'her ensure fhaf regular recrui‘l’menfs are undertaken ‘ro fill fhose vacant sanctioned posfs +ha1' require To be filled up, in oases where 'iemporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process mus‘r be se'r in mafion within six monihs from 'rhis da‘re. We also clarify Thai regularizafion, if any already made, bu‘r no? sub judice, need nof be reopened based on fhis judgment bu'i’ fhere should be no fur'l’her bypassing of ‘l’he consfi'lui’ional requiremenf and regularising or making permanent 1'hose no? duly appoin‘l'ed as per fhe consii‘ru‘rional scheme.“ 4. The Supreme Courf in 'rhe case of Minerai Explorai'ion Corporation Employees‘ Union (supra) in para 17 has held as under :- “17. I? is seen from The above paragraph 'I'ha'i ‘rhis Cour? direcfed the Union of India, the Sm‘re Governmenis and fheir insirumen‘ialifies io regularize as a one-fime measure, The services of such irregularly appoinTed workman, who have worked for Ten years or more in duly sancTioned pos'rs buT noT under cover of orders of The courTs or of Tribunals and should . furTher ensure ThaT regular recruiTmenTs are underTaking To fill Those vacanT sancTioned posTs ThaT require To be filled up, in cases where Temporary employees or daily wagers are beingnow employed.“ Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, having regard To The facTs and circumsTances of The case and wiThouT expressing any opinion on meriTs of The case, The requesT made by learned counsel for The peTiTioner is jusT, fair and reasonable. Therefore, The peTiTioner is allowed To make a deTailed represenTaTion, raising all his grievances annexing a copy of The wriT peTiTion and iTs annexures To The concerned auThoriTy wiThin a period of Ten days (pg from foday and fhe concerned aufharity id direc1’ed 1‘0 decide fhe represenfa'rion wifhin one monfh from The date of ifs receip't offer considering ‘rhe poin‘rs raised by 'H'Ie pefiiioner, in manner, on iis own meri'rs, in accordance wi+h law. 6. Wiih the direc‘rions aforesaid, ihe pe‘ri'iion sfands disposed of. No order as fo cos‘rs. i an objective \_. Sd/- Judge i i . i i Satish K. Agnihoti‘i i k 4 .. .. 1&2006) 4 scc i} 2(JT 2006 (7) 5C 151} Babiu