^ ^ ^'r:7t'ic)^' ^^:vk^-^\ <vo^>o^£'^--'n ^^^•••"" J( ^ C9i^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS^NO. C-f^0 /2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^ Wahidulla Khan, S/o Shri Habibaulla Khan, Aged about 46 years, R/o New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^l. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Health Services Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nehru Nagar, Ameri Road, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA >/ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG.^RH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6780 of2008 PETITIONER : Wahidulla Khaii. VERSUS RESPONDENT8 : State ofClihattisgarh & Otliers. WRIT PETITION UNDE.R .^RTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agniliotri, J. Present: Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agi'awal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi'i P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lavvyer forthe State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 26C1 day of Febniar\r, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari dii'ecting the respondent authorities to regularise the serv7ices of the petitioner from the year 1992. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on fhe post of Ds'iver in the office ofthe Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bilaspw for 89 days vide order dated 05.10.1988. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.05.1989, the petitionei- was appointed as casual fund payee on temporary basis. In the year 1992, some of the similai'ly situated employees were regiilai'ised in sei-vice. However, the services of the petitioner was not regularised. Thus, tliis petrtion. 3. Shri Agrawal, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 24 regular posts ofDriver have been sanctioned and at present only 18 Drivers are working includmg the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 792/2002 before tliis Court against teniiination of his services. In the said petition, this Court, by order dated 5.4.2007, on the basis of consent given by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bilaspur, the petitioner was permitted to join the place ofposting without backwages. 4. Piirsuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others, as contamed in ! (2006) 4 SCC 1 7. 8. 9. 10. i{(s para 53 ofthe judgment, the State Govermiient has issued the circular dated 5.3.2008 (Amiexure P/7) constituting a conmiittee and laid down procedure for consideration of the ad hoc /daily wager employees for regularisation. Sliri Agi'awal further subtiiits that the petitioner was duly eligible fbr consideration but the petitioner was not considered by the conimittee so constituted pursuant to flie circular dated 5.3.2008 (Amiexure P/7). Thus a direction/writ may be issued to tlie respondent authorities to consider the case ofthe petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid circular. Per contra, Sliri Bhaduri, leamed Panel La\v\rer appearing for the State/respondents submits that since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualificatioii ofclass 8th pass and ftirther there were breaiks iii his service. The petitioner was flirther sen7ing as a labour on daily wages basis. Further, m liglit ofthe several decision ofthe Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as souglit for in this petition. Be that as it may, since the circular dated 5.3.2008 (AimexureP/7) was issued iii compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner m accordaiice with the circular dated 5.3.2008 (.Amiexiire P/7) and the procedure as laid down m Umadevi (szipra) and pass appropriate orders. Since it was the case of non-consideratioiL therefore, the eligibility offhe petitioner and otiier requirements caimot be looked into. It is for the conimittee to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the State/respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in liglit of circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexiire P/7) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order asto costs. ^— Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge