^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSQARHATBIU PUR WritADpeal No.184 of 2007 APPELLANTS: RESR3NDENTS: 1. 2. Kumari ShanH Dubey, D/oShri R.S, Dubey, ^ed aboutSO yeare, Raji Kosftl, S/o KJK. Koahl, aged about 32 years, Occupatton: Both Dai^ Wa®es employee and posted at the office of Range Officer, Range Circle Bilaspur.Distriet BHaspur Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. The'State of M.P. through _lte Secretary, Forest Depiartmait, Vatlabh Bhavan, Bhopal, lyt.P. The Chief Conservator of Forest, M.P., Bhopal The Dhrisional Forest Offioer, Bilaspur, Forest Dmsion, Klaspur, M.P. The Range Officer, Forest Range Circle, Bilaspur, Dtetrfet Bilaspur, M.P. Present: Shri Shailendra Dubey, eounsel for the appellants. Shri A.S. t<^chhawaha, Deputy Advocate Generaf fpr the Statorespondents. Division Bench: Hon'ttteSnrt DWrendra Ntishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (16-3-2010) 1; By thte appeal, the appellants have prayed for cpiashing of the oitier dated 31-8-1999 whereby they have baen disengaged from their 1 serviceson the ground thatthereis no workavailable fortliem. ; i.4 iy^i '.:;-/K ^s^^.'^: (s^ e' 2. The appellants' writ petition has been dfemlssed wtth an obserwtion that the appointment of the appenants wras on daily wages basis on availabllity of work, dehors the constltutional seheme and as nich, the appointment of the appellante came to an end when no work was availableforthem. 3 Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that appellant Rajl Koshf was appolnted as Shlkshft Shramtk on 1-11-1887 underlhe Range Offcer, whereas appellant Ku. Shanti Dubey was also working in Vanker Cirele Range from •t-10-1988;and, there'fbre, theyware entitled for appointment under the regular establishment as per cireulac; dated 9?h January, 1990, however, they were dlsengagal from the services by the orelerofAnnKture-A/landAG rwpestlyely t>yjhe: Range Offfcer, Bilaspur Range; and thBa aspect has ncft been considered in the impygned order. 4. The respondents in their return have denled that the appetlante were appointed on 1-10-1988 and 1-11-1987 respectively inthe Forest Diwsion, Bilaspur. Thelr engagement &s casual la&Qurers in Kanker circle priorto 31 December, 1988 could not be treated asthelF.casual appointment inthe Forest Dhrision, Bilaspur. The senrices efcasual labourers are not transferable to another cirole and thus^ thefr ^engagementwas fresh in the Forest DtVision, Bitaspur wheretheywere inservicefrom December, 1998andJanuary, 1999respeetively. 5. Heand leamed counsel Tor the partles. 6. The qyestion for our consideration in thls aqipeal is - whether the appellants could claim regular appolntment on the basls af their 1I: Cl' "si .^:'^ fc) w Ban/e appointment priorto 31* December, 1988 InKanker circte on the*as»s of circular dated 9th January, 1990 fll«l as Antie9(ure-A/1& in this appeal? 7. From perusal of the aforesaid clrcular, we flnd that te gtve' effeet to the aforesald cireular in the matter pf regularizing senflces pf the daily wages, adhoc appoirrtees, work charged and contingency paid appointees in the regular establishment, a scrutiny eommlttee Was directed to be constituted to scnrtinize the ctaim'and only after such scrutiny, servlces were to be regularteed jn the regutar e^blfehment. 8: Jndisputably, the appellants' services were not i^ularlzed tilt 31-8- 1999 when they weredisengaged from thelr services vida Annexure- A/1 and A/2. The appellarte dtd not cteim regularizafiqn on the ba»is of circular of Ahnexure-A/13 and A/T4 tlfr 1989 entf in ftie circumstances, thelr claim for regularizatibn In theyear 1^^ pffthe basis of circular Issued in the year 1.990, that too after their disengagement by the department cannot be considered at ttie appellate stage as theirentitlement coukl be aacertained and verified only by a scrutiny commlttee constituted under cireutar in tteyear 1990 ftself. 9. On thebasis ofaforesaid dlscusslon, we are ofthe pptnion thatthwe is no substance in thls appeal, ttiesame deseryes to be and is heraby^ dismissed. i—- Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar 'Judge II- JUDGE •z i/-?.;a