^ ^- IN 2HE SSASE AmiNISIRA'PIVE S'R^li^^ A£ JABAU'im o.A.N^&€rf7f. O.A. ?fe. c^^'01 1 of 1991 Ramadhar SinQh I'hakur 8. 0-EBers%. Applicants. - Versus - State of N»P«& Oihers ..'. Respondents APPA.ICAIION UNDER SECSI05 19 OF 'fHE ADMTNISSRATIVE 21RIBWAi.t S ACS. 1985 1S: Partlculars of the ^pplicanis ; Ir Ramadhar SinQh Ihakor S/o Shri Lakhan Singh Thakur aged about 25 years, resident of VillaQel GhoQha, Qistt*Rajnandgaon, Bajnandgaon (XP)» 2- Kumbh Lal Verm? S/o Shrl Dhanush_JLal Verma resident.of C/o Ramadhar Singh Ihakur Village Ghogha', Rajn andgaon Dis 11;. Bajnandgaon. 3- Neinsaram Saha S/o Shri Hriday ram Saha, ^/o C/o Ramadhar_Singh Ihakur,_Village Gbo^ha^ Qist-t^'Rajnandgaon (MP). 4^ Na.in I'bBEiar Verma fo Shri HukuBiram Verma B/o "do- 2^. Particulars of "fehe Bespondents t 1- Stat®pf Madhya Pradesh, _ Ihrough ita Secretary, 'li&nis'fcr^ of Pubiic Health 8, Famlly Welfare Department, Bhopal. 2- 2he G&rector, Medical,Se?yices, Bhopal ( )« 3- Ihe Joint Qirector, »!ediGal.Se?yices, ftaipur Division, Raipw? CM?) • 4- The Chief ^edioal & Health. Clficer^ Rajnandgaon, DistG Bajnandgaon fKP). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.449 OF 2005 PETITIONERS Ramadhar Singh Thakur & Others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others Gowri Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Alok Dewangan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners were appointed in the month of February, 1991 at Collector's rate on daily wages. Thereafter, their services came to an by orders dated 11-7-1991 & 10-7-1991. It is indisputable that the appointment of the petitioners on daily wages was not in accordance with law and was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. 3 Be that as it may, it is a trite law that a daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in sen/ice on the basis of appointment, which was temporary for a fixed period and also not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others3 and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4). 4. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petition desen/e§to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. —-—^ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrl Judge 1 (2006)48cci 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3 (2008)108cci 4 (2009)93cc 514