ss r-T ?i •*^^ ^ -L ^- It^ ^ 00.e-e-»*Wo oa •»» t 1MJHE HIGH COURT JUDiCATURE AT BIU\SPUR f CHAT[!SGARH1 WR1TPETITIONNQ..,27^ OF 2002 UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERS /' 2, 4. ^•'.^ .•••' •?-:.-* ;,<&' ^- ,^ o&' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1.. Mohammed Habib khan son of Rasool khan, Time Keeper Pravesh Kumar Masih son of Daud Masih, Time Keeper Raghuwar Prasad son of Moti Ram Helper Parmeshwar Yadav son of Laxmi prasad, Helper . All residents of village Bapali , Left Bank Kanal Sub Division no.3 Barpali ( Korba) District Korba (Chattisgarh) State of Chattisgarh through Secretay Water Resources Department D.K.S Bhawan Raipur Engineer in ChiefWater Resources Department D.K.S Bhawan-Raipur Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Behind Civil Court Bilaspur 'tlL, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritJPfcti.tim N0^370 of2Q02 Pctitioners Mohammed Habib Khan & others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisg^rh and others v^^ "t'actoa Sin^e Bencfa : Hoa'ble Mr. Justice Satteh K. Agalhatrt. Shri AIok Baksbi, counsel for fhe petitiotiiers. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smfc Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govenunent Advocate for the respoiiden.ts/State. ORAL ORDER (4th April, 2006) The foUowing oider ofthe Court was passed by SaUsh K. Agirihotel, J. The pctition filed under Ardcle 226 of the Constitution of Indja scels a direction to rcgulaiize services of the petltioners on tbc post of Anaeen wifb aB consequeutial bcnefits. Tfae petitioners wcre eniptoyed as Time teeper in the Water Rcsourccs Department, Sub Dwisioiial No. 3, Haasdeo Lcfit Bank Canal BarpaU, District Korba. According to thc pcti.tk>ners, the petitioner No. 1 was api»inted on 1.8.1982, the petitfoneT No. 2 was appoiatcd on l.3.1985 and the petittoner No. 3 was appomted on 1.9.1981 as Tinae Keepets. It is fiuther slated that by the circulars dated 9.1.1990, 9.1.1996, 27.7.1998 and 7.3.1991, it was prcscribed by tbe State Qoverxunent that the emptoyces appointed prior to 31.12.1988 on da3y wages/tempoiaiy basis, wouM be oonsidered for regularizatfon. It is submitted that the petitioners have compteted trauung for the post ofAineen Patwari and about 129 posts ofAmeen Kdwari are ^- vacant in the respoudent department. According to fhe petitioiicrs, fhe petidoncrs have sent sevcral repre^atattons to the Oovemineat but no actfon was tafcen. 3. Lcamcd couiisel appcaring &r the petitiDaers submits fhat fhe petitioncr No. l has obtained 10 yeais experiencc and further possesses the required qualiBcation for regularizatiDn as prescribe under the circular dated 29.7.1993 (Annexure R/l). Contention of leamed coiuasel for tfae petitioners is fhat fhe petitioncis Ho. 2 and 3 did not have requfaite expcricnce at the time offlluag the appUcation. 4. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, learaed Depuly Advocate General with Sm.t Anju Ahuja, learued Depuly Goveninient Advocate, per coatea, submits fhat the respondents have made tfarir stand veiy clear in paxa 5.4 of the repty, which icads as under:- "As regards the contents of fhis paragraph of the petitjon, it is, respectfi.ilty, submitted fhat the petitfoner No. 1, 2 and 3 are working as FieM Assistant {Kxne Keepei^. tt is admitted that fhe petitioners havc not yet been rcgularizcd oa fhe rcspective post and, are drawiag salarics on daify -wsvgss emptoyces. It is, furfhcr, respectfiilty, submitted fhat the regularization to fhe post are inade ovSy against the Tegular vacant post on work-chai^ed estabBshinent Smce, tfae name of petitioner no. 1 appears at SrL No. 98 of fhe gradatioa Ust, fhe petitioner no. 2 at Srl. 260 and petitk>nier no. 3 at SrL No. 71 and petitfoner no. 4 is a Hdper under a separate gtadatfon Mst appears at SrL No. 100, therefore, pcraons seinor to fhc pctitioner wffl be entifled for the regularization on prionty agaiiist the petitfoners, a^unst regular vacant post, tfaerefore, fhe petitioners aie not cn.titted for regularisatkin". 5. It was furthier stated that fhere was 66 posts af Axneen are tying vacaat as on 4.2.2005. It was fiirther conteaded fhat the casc of the petitioners wiU be considered in accoriancc with the cucnJar dated. usKtl 29.7.1993, subject to availability ofvacaacies. TherB are several other similarfy situated einployecs, who are working as Amecn on dafly wages b^ris, having inore experience and required qualification are availabte for regularization. 6. In view of fhe categoricatly stand taken by leamed counsel for the respondeats, it does not require further adjudication oa fhe questton ofexperience and require qualification. 7. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioners is not aware about the quaUfication of fhe pedtroners cxcept the pctitioner No. 1 had obtaiacd 10 yeare expenence as per fhe cucular issued by the Sub Diyteional OfiBcer, Hasdcv Lcft Bank Kenal Barpali, District Korba, Sub Diyision. 8, For fhe reasons stated above, fhe petittoners succeeds to fhe extent that the respondents are directed to consBler the case of fhe petitioners, in accordance with law, as per the cncular dated 29.7.1993 (Anncxiuc R/1) and pass fhe appropriate order wifhm a period ofthree months, accordingfy iffhe petitioners are found eBgible for legularization. 9. The petition is accordin^ty aUowed to (he abcwe cxtent. No order as to costs. S^ l- Aguji,.)^ Judge Tfaakur