Ssrstf: E; J^ ra^^^ ts w d^roaZ-^. ~G^^- <<velr HI THE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NQCl2s^1 /2006 FS.B.1 PETITIONERS 1\o- ^ ^e w •*' /••<;t -v /^o^ SS$(5 ;^^"',__, RBBPONDENTS ^ <p\ ^ 1] Jageshwar Dubey S/o Late Jeevan , Lal Dubey aged about 35 years, R/o in front of Water Tank, Kududand, Gayatri Mandir Chowk, Bilaspur [C.G.]. 2] Chandra Kumar Nagdaune S/o ^- late Ganesh Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Magarpara, BUaspur [C.G.]. 3] Mirza Wahid Beg S/o lateCTH^*— Beg, aged about 30 years, R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur [C.G.]. 4] Petrik Pasty S/o N.J. Pasty, aged ^ ;>"'" about 30 years, R/o near Water Tank, Pump Hbuse Road, Torwa, BUaspur[C.G.]. 5] Kartik Ram Sahu S/o Laxman ^ Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o near Radha Krishna Mandir, Torwa, Bilaspur [C.G.]. VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. ^^ ''V rtishik / /' ,\ v _f.u ^' .^.~'. \rQ- •'?•• ^ WBIT .y o^ PETITION The Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through- It's Commissioner, Bilaspur [C.G.]. 3] The Comruissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur [C.G.]. UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE COW8TITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WlMt[S] ORDBRrSt, OlRECTIONrS] TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MAtTER HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATHSGARH: BILABPOR Sin^le Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Affiihotri, J. W. P. (St Ho. 5071 of2006 Petitioaers : Jageshwar Dubey aad ofhers Versus Respondeuts : State of Chhattisgprh & ofh.ers Shri M. K. Bhaduri, Advocate for fhe petitioners. Shri Arvuid Dubey, Paael lawyer for thc respondent No. l. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for thc respondents No. 2 and 3. O R D ER (18tt September, 2006) 1. The services ofthe petitioners No. 1 to 5 were engaged as daify wages worker by ttie respondent/Corporation on 13.10.1989, 5.8.1997, 1.10.1997, 26.10. 1997 aad in the year 1999, respectively. Thereafter the petitioners contuiued tiB 10.5.2000, when they were disengaged by the respondent/Corporation. 2. Be that as it niay, siace, adinittedly, the petitioners' appointineats were not ia accordance with flie schenie for public einployBient, after inviting proper applications and competition amongst quaUfying persons, fhus, the petitioners have no right to coatinuation, reiastateinent, regularization etc in the service of the respondent/ Corporation. 3. The Supreme Court in fhe case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevl (3( and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1}, iu paragraphs 28, 43, 44 and 53 has held as under:- "28. In Director, Insiitu.ie of ManageTnent Developmeni, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava15 this Corurt held ihat sinoe the appointment u/as on purely oontractuat and ad hoc basis on consolidated pay for a fixed period and tenninaUe imihout notice, vyhen fhe appotntment came to an end by effhtx oftime, the appointee had. no right to ixintinue in the post and io daim regulamation in service in the absence of any rule praviding for Tegulamation (^ter the period of service. A Iwnited relief of cKrefdmg that the appointee be penrdlted on sympathetic consideration to be continued in service iitt ihe end of the calend.ar year concemed was issued. This Court rwliced fhat when the appoirvbnent was purely on ad hoc and cmttraclual basis for a Urmied period, on the ejfpiry of the period, ihe righi to remain in ihe post came to an end. This Court stated ikat the view they were taking was the only view possible and sei aside the judgmenl of the High Court which had given reliefto the appointee.1' -^•^^ "43. Thi^s, i( is decu- (ha( adherence to the rule of equality in pubKc employment ia a basic feature of our Constitution and smce fhe ruleoflaw is the core ofour Cortstitution, a oouri would certcwdy be disabled from passing an order upholding a vwlation ofArtide 14 orin ardering the overlooking of the need to comply ivith the reipdremente ofArticle 14 read withArlide 16of the Constitution. Therefore, oonsistent with the scheme for public employmenl, this Caurt ivhile laying down the lcau, has necsssarily to hold ihat unless fhe appoinhnent is in tenns ofihe relevant rules and after a proper (mrnpetition among quaKfied persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a csntractuctl appointment, the appoiniinent oomes to an end a( the end of the corvtraci, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same wauld oome (o an end when it is discontinued. Simiktrly, a temporary emptayee cauld rmt daim io be made perma.nent on ihe expiry of his term. of appmntment. It has also to be darifted that merely because a iemporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued far a time beyond ihe term of his appointment, he wauld not be enStted to be absorbed in regular-seruice or made permanent, merely on the strengfh of sudi continuarux, if the originaf cippoiniment was rwi made by foUowing a due process of aelection as enviaaged by fhe relevant rutes. It is rwl open to the court (o prevent regular recruilment at the instaiux of temporary employees whose period of eTnpIoyment has come to :'^ 't^f' »/- ^**^ an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very na.ture of (?ieir appoinfment do not aaquire any right. The High Caurts acting itmler Artide 226 ofthe Consiitutmn, should noi ordinarily issue dwedions for absorpiian, 'regiXtarization, or permanent conftnuance unless the recruitment iiself was made regulariy and in terms of fhe constitutional sckeme. Merely because an employee had continued under oover of an order of fhe oaurt, which we have described as 'Viigious employment' in the earlier part of ihe judgmeni, he would not be entiiled io any righl lo be absorbed or rrwde permanent in the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court may not be juslified in issuing interim diredions, since, c^ler aV, ifuHimatety fhe employee approacfiing it isfound entitted io relief, ii may he possiblefor it to rrwuld fhe relief in suc^i a mcmner fhat ultimately no prejudice vrill be caused to him, whereas an inierim diredmn io continiie his empJoyment ivould hold up the regular pro(»durefor selection or impose on the Stafe ihe burden of paying an employee who is reaffy not requi'red. TTtfi courts nius< he oareftd in ensuring thcd they do not interfere unduly uoilh ihe eainormc arrangement of fte affmrs by fhe State w its mstrumentaliiies or lend themselves the instruinents to fadUiaie the bypassing of the asnstitutional <xnd statutory rnandates.' *44. T^ie cofwept of "equaf pay for equa.l work' is different from. the concepf of oonferring permanency on those who have been appointed on ad hoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process ofselection as envisaged by the rules. Thss Court has in uarious decisions applied the princaple of equal pay for equal work and has laid dmun the pccrctmeters for the applicatian of thai prindple. The dedsions are resied on the concept ofequcdity enshrined in our Constituiion in the light of ihe directive prindples in that behalf. Bui ihe acceptcmce of that principle carmoi lead. to a position where the court oould direct fhat appointmerds made loMvsui follawing the due procedure established by lciw, be deenwd permanent or issue directions to treai ihem as pemtanent. Doing so, would be negation of the prindple of equality of opporturdty. The pawer to make an order as is necessary for doing oomplete justice in any cause or ma«er pending before thjs Court, vxM.Id rmi nomuiUy be usedfor giving <he go-by fo ihe procedure established by law in the jnalter of public employinenl." 53............... The (juestion of regularisxtlion of ihe serviaes of such employees may have to be considered on merils in the lighl of the prindples settied by this Court in the oases aboverefered to and in the light of fhis judgmienl. In thai contexl, the Union of India, ihe State Govemments and their wtstrumentalities shauld. take steps to regularize as a. one-time measwre, the services of such irregsdarly appoinied, wlw hcwe worked for ten years or nwre in duly scmcfioned posls bui not under cover of orders of the courts or oftribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitmenfs are undertaken tofiR ttmse vcuxi.nf sandionedposts fhat require to be fiHed up, in cases where tejnporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process rraist be se( in motwn iirithin sijc Tnonths from. this d.ate. We also darify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need ruat be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no furfher bypassing of the consfitutional requiremenl and regularsing or making permanenf, those rwt duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 4. In view of fhe dictmn laid down by theSupreme Co-urt iu fhe above judgment and order, I do not fiad any merit ia this petition. The petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to consider ttie case of fhe petitioners as per direction of ftie Suprenie Coiut, as stated above, as one tiiae uieasure, ui acconlaace wifh law. No order as to costs. icAI- SatishK.Agnihotn ; Judge Thakur •.^^^y^^^.^^VffV^^