BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.IS)No. IAQEX OFW lg“ PETITIONER :- H‘g/rgantg/o Pardesi, aged about 20 years, occupation— Daily wages r employee relating to work of cleansing sanitation,conservancy,c/ oPresident, C.G.Karmchrisangh,Safai Kamgar prakosth,Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS REsPONDENTs :- 14am of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Town Administration 85 Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. /B‘havan, 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 . .. .. .. . . . .. Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Appearance: ‘ Shri Sd‘dhir Verma, coun$el for petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (28I01I201 1 Following eral order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation to remove the daily wagers pursuant to the memo dated 23-9-2010 (Annexure - P/1), the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to continue their services as daily wagers and to take steps to regularize their services. (2) At the very outset learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the similarly situated cases came up for consideration before this Court and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court allowed those writ petitions by order dated 20-1~2011 passed in Dhaniram & Others v. State of Chhattisgam & 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 learned counsel appearing for the parties. these petitions are also allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Dhaniram (supra). (4) ‘ However, it is made clear that this Court has neither decided the right or the entitlement of petitioner for regularization nor has passed the order to regularize him and this order for quashing the action of the respondents shall not be construed as an order for contmumg the petitioner or other Similarly placed person on their posts even if no work is available and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme i l ) Zé HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR SINGLE EENCH : &¢N’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. WVPrm N9.494 0f 2011 PETITIONER Hemant. (2» _ 1v Court in the case of Satya Prakash and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2010 (4) SCC 179 as in the subsequent decision the Hon’bie Supreme Court has heid that regularization of oniy irregulariy appointed persons have been directed in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and with regard to daily—wagers directions contained in para 8 and 55 of Umadew' (3) (supra) are appiicabie and not that contained in para 53. Para 7,15,17 and 18 otthe judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matter of Satya Prakash (supra) is reproduced hereunder :- e"7‘ We are of the View that the appeiiants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. The appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. 15. ln our view. the appellants herein would fall under the category of persons mentioned in paras 8 and 55 of the judgment and not in para 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (3). 17. The appellants stated that they had undergone a selection process held fourteen years back. following an advertisement published in the year 1995 but the merit 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 till up the posts, the applications. if any submitted by the appellants may also be considered after giving age relaxation. 18. ln Umadevi (3) case in para 55 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench has also permitted such persons to participate in selection process waiving the age relaxation and giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in y the Department for a significant period of time.“ (5) ln view of the above the writ petition is ailowed with the above observation. (6) No order as to costs. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge