L<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBJLASPUR D.BJ^ON^BLESj^mHJREMDRAMJ^^^^^ HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ AppelJant WritAppeaJNo. 317 of 2010 Asha Ram Sahu, s/o Ghass Ram Sahu, aged about 42 years, R/o Tahsil : Pamgarh, DIstt. Janjgir- Champa (CG) Versus Respondents 1. 2. State of Chhattjsgarh, through the Secretary, Department ofHealth, DKSBhawan, Ralpur (CG) Chief Medicaj & Health Offfcer, Dsstt. Janlgir- Champa (CG) Present : Shri PS Koshy with Shri AK Prasad, counset for the appetlant. Shri YS Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (21SIOctober,2010) Per Dhirendra MfshrB.J Heard on IA No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 02. On due consideration of the reasons assianed in the application, which is also supported by the affidavit of the appeilant, delay is condoned. 03. The appellant's writ petition for quashrfg of fhe order of Annexure A/1, whereby his services have been terminated w.e.f. 31 March, 2000, has .been. dismissed by the impugned order wjth the followina observation: Trom the pteadings and matenat avajlabte on record, it is apparent that petttjoner was jnitgaljy appointed after 31.12.1988. This was a daily wage appointment on temporary basis without creating any right in favour of the petitioner. This appointment was a back door entry wiihout fojlowing reguSar process of seiection, without following government instructions and stetutory recrujtment ruies. The screening committee found that appoirftment of the petitioner was itlegal. Respondents hav-e stated that Shri O.P. Katakwar, Contingency Chowkidar, P.L. Katakwar, VVardboy and Shri Khoibara, Cteaner, were appointed before 31.12.1988 as reftected l';^ 'Silff^BBSK-ISISBBISIB^^^B ^yjtittWSSK^iUlMRj :.^;^^:l from order annexed as Annexure R-3, therefore, they are not junjor to the petitioner." 04. Shri PS Koshy, ieamed counsei for the appelJant, submits that the appeilant continued in semce even after termination by virtue of interim order passed by the Tribunal on 28.4.2000 vide Annexure A/8. in the meanwhile, his services were regularized and he was promoted to the post of MHW Grade-lli vide Annexure A/9. However, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge during the course of arguments. Sjnce the appellant's grievance against the order of termination was already redressed after hjs services were regularized and he was promoted vide Annexure A/9, the petition itseif became infructuous. However, the writ petition itself has been dismissed on merits by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court, as mentioned in the order, vide Annexure A/1, and the State Government has now jssued fresh order on 3rd August, 2010 and informed the appeflant that since his petition stands dismlssed by the High Court, his services stand termlnated w.e.f. 31st March; 2000 and he should hand over charge to the Biock Medical Offjcer. The appelianfs appiication for review has been further dismissed on 3.9.2010 vjde Annexure A/3. 05. , Learned counsei for the appeilant submlts that the appelianfs servlces have been regularized as per decision ofathe State of Chhattisgarh vide Circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure A/11) and in these circumstances, the order dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure A/2) passed by the respondent No.2 on the basis of order of Annexure A/1 and the order of Annexure A/1 may be set aside. 06. On the other hand, iearned counsel for the State wouid argue that the appejianfs services were terminated vide order dated 31 March, 2000. However, he continued in service by virtue of interim order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Tribunal, even after his termination from servjces. Leamed Single Judge, after considering the nature of appointment of the petitioner, has hetd the order of termination strictiy in accordance with law and dismissed the petition by placing reliance on the binding judgments of the Supreme Court. The appellant's subsequent regularization and promotion vide Annexure A/9 was not an issue before the iearned Slngle Judge in the writ petltion. The subsequent order of regularization and promotion sn the year 20C)8 is an outeome of stay order granted in favour of the appellanVpetitioner passed in the petition filed by him before the Tribunal, and as such, the same amounts to iitigious employment and does not confer any right upon him. -^" WM 11 !• .07.,.^,'t^^teaiTi^coui^l;^ .petWonas?also^the|imRugn^^nje^^^^ r:.- '•'"•.i-'/.i'': •'.''~.v''/—"^':•'•':':::-i:^\' '•^'.••:.-:'^--'^''.':.'"" •'69.;;:;^:^t<SamediSir^te|^ge,?|fter||o^ laRpointed,:>o^dai|yt^^es',|nJ|em|(a|fy^ia^i^^ :,proc6Ss^:QfiieliEt|^|ar1cl;|^^Q^ •statuto^lr^mtt(iiint;,i:ru^jhas^;:ild(sm|^?|h^{^e^ ^deNsjon'^1theyS|i||r@me|Cc«^ :^ap|^JIa^o^i^||i^|ejy|l||j^]|9^^ .1a!the^'y|aT.j|i(^||^f|he||||u|a^ ^servJces';vy^ireg||lanze|^ ;:tilvr ^S{nce;illNe^^earW^|S|i9lei^ud^ ^pas^d|onJ|2|(^Marchl|J|5^ regulari^on antf prpmotiortivjcfe A appellant. We find no substance^ri th»sA^ appeal, ^e^ s to be andis,accotxlingly.clismjs^at^ Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge Dhirendra Mishar ;-^\.~