^... -^^ -^p^" SingleBench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S ) No. ^/ g.2- Of 2009 pEn'moNER: RESPONDENTS: Raut S/o Late Shri Ramji Raut , aged about 62 years, occupation retired Hgl^er , R/o C/o Mr. P.K. Pandya, Chitrakoot Road, Dharainpura No.l, Infront of Kailash Hotel, Jagdalpur (CG). Versus € 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Departnient of Housing and Environnient, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). ^' 2. The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Head Office - Shanker Nagar, Raipur, (CG)« 3. The Superintending Engineer (Administration), Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Head Office, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (CG). \ 4. The Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division, Bodhghat Colony, Jagdalpur (CG). 5. The CoUector, Jagdalpur (CG). Bastar at yRiT PETITl^ UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE C©NSTITUTION-OFINDIA hr- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.482 OF 2009 PETITIONER Ramchandra Raut Versus RESPONDENTS The State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel forthe respondents No.2, 3 & 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 7th day ofApril, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of absorption of the petitioner's service in the Housing Board w.e.f. 21-3-1994 as per the order dated 6-1-2001 whereunder the services of the petitioner was absorbed. Secondly, to regularize the services of the petitioner and to grant the benefit of 5th pay commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996, further, to pay arrears of difference of pay. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on 18-6-1980 in the establishment of Timber Plant of M.P. Housing Board, Bhilai. Thereafter, on closure of the Timber Plant, the petitioner was relieved from the service, however, by order dated 6-1-2001 (Annexure ~ P/3) the petitioner was absorbed in the Housing Board as a daily wager. The petitioner continued in the same without regularization and discontinued his service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31-1-2008. Subsequently, a resolution was passed by the respondent Housing Board to grant the benefit of regularization to the daily wagers, who were appointed prior to 31-12-1988, thus the benefit of regularization should be extended to the petitioner also with a direction to grant the benefit of 5th pay commlssion. ,^^«^\. .y .•A f€ZL j 1 -^./ 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Housing Board submits that the petitioner was never appointed \n( accordance with law. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis and continued in the same capacity when he was absorbed and thereafter his services were discontinued on attaining the age of60 years. The Housing Board passed a resolution on 25-8-2008 granting regularization to the daily wagers who were working prior to 31-12-1988. The same benefit may not be granted to the petitioner, as he had already discontinued his service on 31-1-2008. Further, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of regularization after he retired from the service on attaining the age of 60 years and on that ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits in support of the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board. 5. Having heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute that the petitioner was a daily wager and, as such, his appointment was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. 6. It is a trite law that a daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary for a fixed period and also not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd2, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others3 and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4). 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3 (2008)108cci 4 (2009) 9 SCC 514 ^^f3^. lj;^^^l:. '^. !i ^»... 'l ^'^SffS^ i "J/ ^^^ ^' ^^s'y--"1" 7, In the facts of the case even if the regularization was granted to some persons, who continued to work that benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner, as when the resolution was passed by the Housing Board, the petitioner was no longer in service. Further, it is also well settled that the employees after having retired from the service cannot claim the benefit of regularization or higher pay scale. 8. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. 9. There shall be no order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri