HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ Writ Petition {S} N0. 3781 of 2008 Petitioners: Smt. Champa Bai, W/o Shri Bhagwat Singh Thakur, Aged about 47 years, R/ o Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Baisakhin Bai, W/o Shri Shobha Ram, Aged about 55 years, R/o Quarter of Animal Husbandry Farm, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Smt. Indribai, W/o Late Jagdish, Aged about 44 years, R/ o Government Quarter, Animal Husbandry Department, Pakaria, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Budhia Bai, W/o Shri Kunwar Singh, Aged about 50 years, R/ o Government Quarter, Animal Husbandry Department, Pakaria, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilasur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh — through the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry 8a Veterinary, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents: 1. The Director, Veterinary Services, Raipur (C.G.) The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. respondents to consider i l. O R D E R (Passed on this 18th day of July, 2008) 1. The petitioners, by this petition, seek a writ/direction to the the case of the petitioners for j, p @ regularization w.e.f. the year 1988 and grant them back wages, accordingly. . The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed ‘ on daily wages in the year 1979,‘ 1975, 1980 and 1979, respectively. The petitioners continued in the same capacity. On 22.11.1988 a circular (Annexure P/2) was issued, whereby it was provided that the employees, who have been appointed before 1.1.1984 and have completed three years of service by 1.4.1987, may be entitled'to regular pay scale from the establishment of the work charged and contingency fund. 3. The petitioners were considered in the year 2007 and were granted regular pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.2007 vide order dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure P/8). The petitioners have filed this petition claiming grant of regular pay scale and regularization w.e.f. the year 1988. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to grant of regularization firstly on the basis of the circular, and secondly, as the similarly placed persons were considered earlier and granted benefit 0f regular pay scale but the petitioners were not granted the same relief. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 6. Itis no longer res integra that the persons appointed on daily wages basis, dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, have no right to the post or to reinstatement or continuation in service. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioners was not legal and valid as it was in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners cannot claim x ; /\ regularization as a matter of right as their appointments were illegal andimproper { See State of Karhataka 85 others Vs. Uma Devi 85 othei‘sl}. , The State Government by >circular dated 22.11.1988 (Annexure _P/2), decided to grant regular pay scale, that', by itself, does not confer any right on the petitioners, as their appointments were not regular and proper. 7. With regard to the contention of discrimination, according to learned counsel similarly situated persons were granted regularization in the year 1988. The petitioners have not challenged the regularization 0f their service immediately in the year 1988 but waited for more than 20 years to challenge-the same when they were regularized on 14.9.2007 (Annexure P/8). Thus, at this stage the challenge on the ground of discrimination is not sustainable and this petition deserves to be dismissed’ on the ground of belated approach to/this Court, without proper justification and explanation. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard \Co. Ltd. an others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar 85 anotherZ, observed as under: “The very conduct of no-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our View, should be a sufflcient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches.” 9. With regard to the violation of circular dated 22.11.1988 (Annexure P/2), the same cannot be contended at this moment because the regularization was granted to all the employees after proper scrutiny. The cases of the petitioners have been considered 1 (2006) 4 s.c.c. 1 2{ (1995) 4 scc 172} ‘ .