T ^\^. s' BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.rSlNO. V^^~ OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :- 1. <" >r3:. ^•: .^s%-- ^^ ^^v& r Rakesh s/o Beluram, aged about 28 years, occupation- Daily wages employee relating to work of cleansing sanitation,conservancy,c/oPresident, C.G.Karmchrisangh,Safai Kamgar prakosth,Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Town Administration 85 Development, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. TheMunicipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon,Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgapn (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA z^ HIGH OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETLTIONER SHRS PRASHANT KUMAR MSSHRA. J. W.P.(SlNo.7495of2010 Rakesh. Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another. PETJTSON UNDER ARTSCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF 5NDSA. Appearance: Shri Sudhir Verma, counset for potitionor. Shri N. Naha Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the State. ORAL (28^01/2011) Foliowing orai order of the Court was by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent Munidpai Corporation to remove the daiiy wagers pursuant to the memo dated 23-9-2010 (Annexure - P/1). the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking a directi'on to the respondent authorities to continue their services as daily wagers and to take steps to regularize their servlces. (2) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the simjjariy sltuated cases came up for consideration before this Court and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court aiiowed those writ petitions by order dated 20-1-2011 passed in & Othsrs v. of Chha sgaf^n & Others WP (S) No.6798 of 2010 (decided on 20-1-2011) and other connected matters. (3) In view of fair submission made by the iearned counsel appearing for the parties. these petltions are aiso allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Dhsniram (supra). (4) However, it is made clear that this Court has neither decided the right or the entitlement of petitioner for reguiarization nor has passed the order to regularize him -and thls order for quashing the action of the shaii not be construed as an order for continuing the petitioner or other similariy piaced person on their posts even if no work "is and contran/ to the orders by the HQn'ble Supreme ' Court in the case of Satya Prakash and vs. ofBlharand Orfrers reported in 2010 (4) SCC 179 as in the subsequent dedsion the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that reguiarization of only jrregularly appojnted persons have been directed in the matter otSecretaty, State of and Others Vs. Umsciev! (3) and Others reported in 4 SCC 1 and wlth regard to daily-wagers directions contained in para 8 ana' 55 of Umadevf (3) (supra) are applicable and not that contained in para 53. Para 7,15,17 and 18 of the judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the of (supra) is reproducsd hereunder:- "7. We are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularizatjon of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. The appellants were only engaged on daiiy wages in the Bihar intermediate Ea'ucation Councii. 15. In our view.the appeilants herein wouid fa!I under the category of persons mentioned in paras 8 and 55 of the judgment and not In para 53 of thejudgment jn Umadevi (3). 17. The appeElants stated that they had undergone a selectioh process held fourteen years back, foSlowing an advemsement published in the year 1995 but the merit iist was neither prepared nor pubiished. Selection process thought undertaken by the Council was not compjeted and now the Council is no more in existence. However, if the Board proposes to undertake any reguiar selection process to fiil up the posts, the applications, if any submitted by the appeilants may also be considered after giving age reSaxation. 18. In UmQdevi (3) case in para 55 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench has aiso permitted such persons to participate in seiection process waiving the age relaxation and givjng the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the Departmentfor Qsignificant penod Qn\me." (5) !n view of the above the writ petition is a!lowed with the above observation. (6) No order as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1<-