Q§w§$§w ?*W“" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 596 0f 2010 (Arising out of Writ Petition (S) No.4608/ 2005) c’ :9 \da/b / ‘ SHIV KUMAR GANDHARV S/o Shri Purshottam , aged about 37 years, occupation Bulls Attendant , Veterinary Services, Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). APPELLANT: PETITIONER VERSUS / 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principle Secretary, Veterinary Services, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). /2. The Director , Directorate of Veterinary Services, Raipur , District Raipur (CG). /3. The Joint Director, Veterinary Services , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur (CG). WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 READ WITH SECTION 158 110) (i! {bl OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES 2007 RESPONDENTS : 3 n R¢spondenis ® HIGH COURT OF CHHATfiseAR‘H A‘T'“§ILA5PUR DIVI$ION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUQDU$I g r HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHR‘A, JJ. WRIT APPEAL No.06 OF 2010 ' , Shiv Kumar Gmdharv Vs Thé State of 6.6. & afhers . Qgddusi" J: Heard. This wri'r appea! has been filed againsf fhe impugned order da'red 03.12.2009 passed-by the teamed Single‘Judge in W.P. (5) No.4608/O5 dismissing The wri‘r pe‘rifion. In fhe wri‘r pe‘ti'fion the pe'l'ifioner had soughf for a direction ‘ro fhe responden‘t nuihorifies fa gran? annual incremen‘r To ‘rhe pemsoner w.e.f. 5.10.1990 mi zooo mm Maren c9 13% per oéAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 7’” Aprii, 2010) a nnnum. Brief facis of fhe case are fha'l' inifially the wriT appellant along with other three persons‘ was appointed as ‘Poultry Vaccinator‘ on the monthly” wages' basis fixed by the then Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 11.3.1987. Thereafter, the Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur vide order dated 01.10.1991 engaged some persons including the writ appellant w.e.f.~-5.10.1990 at the minimum of the regular pay scale Le. Rs.750-12-870-15~945/—. Further, a direction was issued that they should not be given any annual increment. The posts were not sanctioned and as such their engagement was not against any regular post. Thereafter, the posts were abolished and the Present: Mr. Eharat Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arvind DubeyfPanel Lawyer for the respondents. wri‘r appellan‘r Was gdju§fred vide order da'red 8.5.2000 on fhe posf of ‘BuH Affendanf' in fhe pay scale of Rs.2550-55—2660- 60-3200/-. The wriT qppellanf s'rarfed 'ro ge‘r annual'incremen‘r with effec'l' from his regular appoin'rmenf on ‘l’he posf of ‘Bull Affendan'r', however, he claimed ‘ro 9e? annual increment wifh effec‘l' from his engagement in The minimum of 'rhe regular pay scale i.e. Rs.750-12-870-15-945/—. . The Hon'ble Apex CourT in so many cases where a person is engaged on daily wages basis and discharging 1'he similar dufies which are being discharged by his coun'ier parf in regular pay scale, has granfed minimum pay scale To fha'r daily wage employee. (See U.P. Income-fax Departmen‘r Can‘tingen‘r Paid staff Welfare Associa‘l’ion Vs. Union of India and ofhers reporfed in AIR 1988 SC 517 & Delhi Municipai Karamchari Ekfa Union (Regd) Vs. P.L. singh and others reporfed in AIR 1988 SC 519). .In The insTanT case, The wriT appellanT was engaged aT The fixed monfhly wages basis and la‘rer on, he was engaged in fhe regular scale of pay a'r The minimum of The same and Therefore, in our opinion, The same does n/oT creaTe any righT upon him To claim benefiT of The annual incremenT. . In view of The above, we find no illegaliTy or improprieTy in The order impugned passed by The learned Single Judge. 8. In The resulT, The wriT appeal fails and The same is dismissed? Roshan Sd/— 7 .l‘ Sd/— ," ‘ i I'M-Quddusi Prashant Kumar‘Mishra Judge ‘ Judge