(Z / ;GlfIf 8FNCH ^) IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ISINO. -724^ /2010(S.B.) PETITIONER ,^g;^° ^^y' ^^" RESPONDENTS / Shekhar Manhar S/o Shri Darasram Manhar, aged about 28 years, Present address: Near Shiv Mandir, Ravan Mohalla, Village- Manikpur, Post- Manikpur, Diss- Korba (C.G.), R/o- village Dabadih, P.0.- Koseer, P.S. & Tagsil- Pamgarh, Disst- Jangir Champa (C.G.). VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- The Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief Conservator of Forest Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) 4. The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range Korba. Distt- Korba (C.G.) 5. The Forest Management Committee Bhulsidih, Korba. Distt- Korba (C.G.) ^ WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. i mGHCQyRT OF CHHATI1SGARH AT BILA8PUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (8) No. 724 of2010 Shekhar Maiihar. RE8PONDENTS VERSUS' State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETmON U'NDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'riON OF INDIA SB: Hon?fole Shri Satish K. Agmliotri, J. Present: Siiri R.R.Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri N.N.Roy, Panel La^yerforthc State/respondents. QIIALQRDER (Passed on 19th day of Febmary, 2010) By this petitioii, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in sei-vice and flirther to make the payment to the petitioner for the period from 01.01.2008 to 17.02.2008 and to pay interest on the amount of salary for the period trom 01.07.2007 to 31.12.2007. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was employed with tlie respondents on daily wage basis for the pei'iod Irom 17.02.2007 to March, 2007, April 2007 to September, 2007 and October 2007 to 17.02.2008. On 17.02.2008, a dispute took place between the petitioner and one S.A.Khan, the then Forest Range Officer, Korba. According to the petitioiier, the said ofticer abused the petitioiier and thereaiter, the petitioner was removed from sen7ice. Leamed counsel appearmg for tiie petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked with the respondents but the petitioner has not been paid his salary fbr the period from 01.01.2008 to 17.02.2008. Shri Soni further submits that the petitioner made several requests to the respondent authorities for his reinstatement iii service as well as payment ofsalary, but till date, nothing has been done in this regard. On the other hand, Shi'i Bhatia, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that vvhen the petitioner has sought LLLt <<^ 13i32iSs^r inlbrmation regarding his service under the Right to Infbmiation Act, 2005, tiie petitioner has been iiiformed vide communication dated 12.08.2009 (Amiexure P/2) regai'ding the period the petitioner worked with the respondents and tiie documents with regard to payment of his salaiy was also supplied to the petitioner. As far as the reinstatement in sei-vice is concemed, the petitioner was a daily wager and thus, he caimot claim reinstatement or continuation in ser^tce. The petitioner has not produced any document with regard to his appointoient. Further, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he has worked for the period, as afbrestated. On the contrary, the respondents, vide the coniniunication dated 12.08.2009 (Aimexiire P/2) have infomied the petitioner with regai'd to the period duriiig which he has worked and the payment of salary was made accordingly to the petitioner. Thus, for want ofrelevant documents, it is not possible to examine the allegations made by fhe petitioner. It is well settled law that aii employment i.e. daily wager, temporaty, ad hoc ete. made de hors the constitutional scheme of employment and statutoiy mles and regulations is illegal, null aiid void. It is not fhe case of fhe petitioner fhat the petitioner was appointed on the basis of invitation to all the eligible caiididates ttoough selection. Since the appointment ofthe petitioner as daily wagei' was not m accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, the petitioner has no rigtit to contmuation or reinstatement in sei-vice, (See Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) & Others1 and Offwial Liquidator v. Dayanand & Other^). In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stageitself. —— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge ' (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2008) 10 SCC 1