kh^ays hl<fela|te *^M\^ bsQ. 6T &U3 EI^SE feh-l^Ue j|oit0aj| AftiBy A&i&y 'hifei^ iFp'yy &h fitekft -£ jioitOfij >'R»?r> hlbl^. l^*]y £h h.l.ill-tolb.ft -z lOltO^j ^h.l>'kbk'ft'h'*'|S tiiyjsit/itUsh) htei^ ii^'yy &b blai& E&&. - mS kaia sit&i^i -1 a ^ y jjoitOajj ^fti^y - i&iej ^t^it hiAii^tbjhij £h 'ifeiifcijh aia kP->]hd>T; [k telrille ^. z,e - Eue "^bit •>ii»t&big sas&tM Ink^blsll-le th?>yte ~ZOOZj~~~~~T^f~'^~l ^oftO^ S(jlSn& •>1>bl> In'Xbhjto tt>yi»lli:K bnft li:^(lh«llt b^Wlt filtB. ^ ^, a'i!:,:: HiGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTiON (S) N0.4608/2005 'ETnnONER Shivkumar Gandharo RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: - Shri Rakesh Anthony, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 3rd day of December, ^009) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition was heard finally. (2) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant annuai increment to the petitioner w.e.f. 05-10-1990 till 2000 with interest @ 18% perannum. (3) The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioneralong with other three persons was appointed on the post of "Poultry Vaccinator" on 11-03-1987 (Annexure-A/1) at the rate fixed by the Collector and in the year-1998, the post of "Poultry Vaccinator" was abolished and the employees working on that post, were absorbed as "Bulls Attendant". Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized on 01-01-19910n a regular pay scale of Rs.750-12-870-15-945 with effect from 05-10-1990. The petitioner was granted salary without annual increments for the period from 01-10-1991 to 01-09-2000. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the application before the State Administrative Tribunal on 01-03-2002, which was numbered as O.A.No.238 of 2002. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the petition was transferred to this Court and re- S'/^-D? B3?SBR55f" ^.^.ASa.ia^.ij^tg^ ^r '^- —"L' numbered as W.P.(S.)No.4608/2005. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the service of the petitioner was regularized by order dated 1-10-1991(Annexure A/2), he is entitled to annual increments from the said date. Learned counsel in support of his contention, piaced reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Wlohd. Abdul Kadir and Another V. Director General of Police, Assam and Others . (4) On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, submits that the service of the petitioner was regularized without obtaining sanction from the Government. Since the petitipner was regularized without sanction of the Government, the petitioner would not be entitled to annua! increment. After absorption of the petitioner on the post of Bulls Attendant vide order dated 01-09-2000(Annexure A-3), and immediately thereafter, he was granted annual increments with effectfrom 01-12-2000. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the initial appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis and on monthly payment at the rate fixed by the Collector. It is undisputed that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, and as such, it has been he'ld that the appointment itself was illega!. Thereafter, regularization of the services of the petitioner and grant of annual increment cannot legalize the initial appointment. The petitioner was regularized without sanction of the government, thus, it cannot be held that the regularization was done in accordance with law and as such he was not entitled to any increment from the date he was regularized. (2009) 2 SCC ( L&S) 227 :t .-.^g, 1 'w -M^<! %; ^ -^ Tijmane (6) !t is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned regular post. The post of Poultry Vaccinator was abolished by order dated 14-09-1998and thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed by order dated 01-09-2000 (Annexure A-3) on the post of Bulls Attendant on a regutar pay scale of Rs.2550/-. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted annual increments thereafter. The claim of the petitioner for annual increments is not tenable when it was made clear by communication dated 07-03-1992 (Annexure R-1) that the regularization ofthe petitioner was made without sanction. The communication dated 07-03-1992 makes itdear that sanction of the post was awaited. (7) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner has no right to grant of annual increment on the post of Poultry Vaccinator from 05-10-1990 till 01-09-2000 on the basisof regularization which was not against the sanctioned post. . (8) In view of foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. AgriiUotri Judge m lilll)il!i^i'«!^^^!^^ '^&^^iS-.i^B.^iii.^lSi^iia.—^.wigu^^.i.'ii'Sffiaw'^SSSt ••iiii—aaa—i-aaaaaEBBd