SINfiLE BENRH ^: ^^s^;^^ .-•??li.^'-'~ Sfts't !lSS°"^ ....-•1 's'l" . -»•'•''" ^86-- rf THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BUASPUR (C.G.) W. P. (S) No. •?3^-? /2006 PETITIONER RESPONDEINTTS : ^ Mentmn Bai W/o Shri Khoge Age about 42 years, R/o badi K.oniJBirkona Magra Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS </1. State of Chhattisgarh Throu^i :- Secretaiy, Department ofPubUc Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) f1. Engmeer-in-Chief, Public Works, Department Raipur (C.G.) ^3. Superintending Engineer, Public Works, Department Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ^4. Executive Engineer, Public Works, Department Division No.l Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF TME CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ W.W COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Sirgle Bench: Hon'bl®Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. (5) No. 5S13 of 2006 Petitioner ; Mentnin Bai Versus Respondents ; State of Chhatt-isgarh & Others Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay ESwivedi, Pcnel Lawyer for the respondents/State. tlh (10Tn October, 2006) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tiiat the petitioner was cypointed prior to 31.12.1988 and at present she is working as Labour (ciass-IV emptoyee) in the respondents-department as daity wager. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition pmying for a relief in terms of the judgment and order possed by the Supreme Court in the case of "Secretary. State of Kamatako and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others and Minaral Exploration Corporation Empioyeas' Union v. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited & Anr. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary. State of Kflmataka and Others (ajpra), in para53 has held as under: "53. ...........The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles setl-ted by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the li9ht of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State ©ovemmentsand their instrumentalities ^.---""n" ^ .^- - •.. should take steps to reguhrize as a one-tirne measure, the services of such irre9ularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunotls and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fitl those vacant scnctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now emptoyed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if ony alrecdy made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duty appointed as per the constitutional scheme." The Supreme Court in the case of MinsraS Exploration Corporation Employses' Union (aipra) in para 17 has held as under :- "17. It is seen from the above paragroph that this Court directed the Union of India, the State &ovemments and their instrumentalities to rsgutarize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly oppointed workman, who have -t worked for ten years or more in du!y amctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaking to fill those vacant sanctioned posts thiat require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed." 5. Having heard !earned counset for the parties, having regard to tfie facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner is Just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the €y\ petitioner is allowed to make n detailed representation, raising all her 9rievances annexing a copy of the writ petition ond its annexures to the concerned cuthority vuithin a period of ten ddiys from today and the concemed authority is directed to decide the representation within one month from the dcte of its receipt after considering the points raised by the petitioner, in on objective manner, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 6. With the directions aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihom Judge Bablu {(2006) 4 SCC 1} 2{JT 2006(7)5c 151} ~f~.-=-<.-