^\6-^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. •q^ OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^'n'~°5/<y/ ^/,,^~-~'-^'^1 •„ ^l'')Q'QaoSJ>'' \^ Mrs. Vandana w/o Sunil, aged about 30 years, occupation- Daily wages employee relating to work of cleansing sanitation,conservancy,c/oPresident of C.G.Karmchrisangh,Safai Kamgar prakosth,Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Town Administration 8s Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. TheMunicipal ' Corporation, Rajnandgaon,Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /'' 1) PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in cause title above. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in cause title above. \. "•^//^ ^'^£^^ nc L/ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. B1LASPUR WRIT PETITION Al W.P.fSi No.7506 of201! Mrs. Vandana. State of Chhattisgarh and another. mcLi irance: Shri Sudhir Verma, counse! for petita'oner. <Jlltiri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe SSate. Follow'ng orai order of the Court was passed b) Prasham Kumar Mishra. J. ieing aggrieved by the action of the respondent Municipi Corporatlon to remove the daiiy wagers pursuant to the memo dated ;3-9-2010 (Annexure - P/1), the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to continue their servtces as daily wagers and to take steps to regularize their services. (2) At the vei-y outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the similarly situated cases came up for consideration before ihis Court and after considering al! the aspects of the matter, this Court allowed those writ petitions by order dated 20-1-2011 passed in Dhaniram & Others v. of Chhattisgarh & OthersWP (S) No.6798 of 2010 (decided on 20-1 -2011) and other connected matters. (3) In vlew offair submission made by the learned counsel appearin§ for the parties, these petitions are a!so aiiowed in terms of the decision (4) Hov/ever, it is made clear that this Court has neither decided the right or the emitlem.ent of petitioner for reguiarization nor has passed the order to regularize him and this order for quashing the action of the respondents shail not be construed -as an order for continuing the petitioner or other similariy placed person on their posts even if no work is avaiiabte and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme .:;7^ .^ "^ ' Si ii' ?j*tESSSh» V (., ".!as;sB|; ^ ^^y "'^i-s^^ ^' ^- Court in the case or Satya and Others vs. ofBihar snd Othefs reported in 2010 (4) SCC 179 as in the subsequent decision the Hon'bte Supreme Court has held that regufarization of only irregularly appolnted persons have been directed in the matter of Sscretary, Stste f'2006) 4 SC'C f and wlth regard to daily-wagers directions contained in para 8 and 55 of Umadevi (3) (supra) ars applicable and not that contained in para 53. Para 7,15,17 and 18 of the judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court In the matter of Satya Prakash (supra) is reproduced nereunder:- "7. We are of the view that the appeliants are not entitied to get the benefit of reguiarization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. The appellants were only engaged on daiiy wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. 15. In our view, the appellants herein would fall under tne category of persons mentioned in paras o and 55 or ttie judgment and not in para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (3). 17. The appellants that they had undergone a selection process held fourteen years back, following an advertisement published in the year 1995 butthe rnerit list was neither prepared nor published. Selection process thought undertaken by the Council was not completed and now the Council is no more in existence. However, if the Board proposes to undertake any regular selection process to fili up the posts, the applications, if any submitted by the appeilants may also be considered after givi'ng age relaxation. 18. In umacfew' ('3; case in para 55 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench has also permitted such persons to participate in selection process waiving the ags relaxation and jiving the weightage ror having been engaged or worked in the Departmentfor a significantperiodoftme." (5) In view of the above the writ petition is allowed with the above (6) No order as to costs. Sd//- prashantKumarMishra -- Judge is