i., ...;!•!* HIGHCOITRTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPIJR ( ^ WntPefttitonNo, 1215 of2000 PETITIONERS : 1. Lakhpati Patel, S/o Abhay Charan aged 36 years, woriung as Daily Wages Peon, in the Muiiicipal Council, Raigarh, R/o Raigarii Distt. Raigarh (MP) (Now C.G.). 2. Raghuram Yadav, S/o Damu Yadav aged 35 years, working as Peon of Daily Wages in the oiEce of the Municipal Council, Raigarh, R/o Raigarh (MP). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : l.State of M.P., tfarougii Secretary Departmeiit of Urban Administration and Etevelopment, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 2. Director, Urban Adnrimstration and Development, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 3. Municipal Council, Raigarh, tfarougti its Chief Municipal OflGcer, at post & District Raigarh (MP). (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'UeMr.SatishK.AffmIutri.J.) Pr^ent : Noneforthepetitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Cteneral for the State/respondent No. 1. Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate far the respondeirt No. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 03"* ofMarch, 2008) 1. Heard leamedcounsel appearing for tfae respondents. 2. On perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that, the petitioners were appomted as Peon on daily wages basis. The petitioners have not filed a copy ofappointment order but a copy ofMaster Roll has been filed, wfaerein it is indicated that the petitioners were working as daily wagers. 3. The State Govemment, by order dated 31.12.99 held that any appomtment made on daily wages after 01.01.89 will be held as illegal and the ofBcers appomting daily wagers be held responsible and the payment made thereon may be reeovered from the ofBcers eoncemed. 4. The petitioners seek quashing ofthe order dated 31.12.99 and further a direetion to the respondent No. 3 to regularize all the daily wages woriceis •"'i '! itta appointed since 1988. It is infonned that at that point oftime there was a circular dated 31.12.88. As per circiilar dated 25.09.98 (Armexure P/3) wherein it was provided that all the einployees appointed on daily wages basis prior to 31.12.88 shall be considered for regularization. 5. Be that as it may, now with the passage oftime, law has changed. All the decisions directing regularization of the employees appointed, dehors the constitaition scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, impliedly stand overruled, in view ofthe decision ofthe Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India ia the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi aad others . The HonUe Supreme Court has laid down clear enunciation of law which was followed later on in various decisions by the Supreme Court. Some are Aecounts OfiBcer (A&I) A.P.SRTC and olfaers Vs. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao and otfieis , Sunder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Panshad and others , Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corp.) Vs. State ofU.P. and odiers and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Man Singh . 6. In the case ofSecretary, State ofKarnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others (supra), tfae Supreme Court observed as under: "45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual be regularized or made pennanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concemed has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nalure, is not aware ofthe nature ofhis employmeat. He accqrts the employment with open eyes. It may be tme that he is not in a position to bargain- not at arm's length-since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and aceepts wliatever he gets. But ou that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constifaitional scheme of appouitmetrt and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanenlly. By going so, it will be creating another mode of public appomtment vrfuch is not permissible. 47. When a person enters a temporary employment or get engageinent as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure, he is aware oftfae consequences ofthe appomtmenst being temporary, easual or contractual in nature. Such person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being eonfumed in the post when an appointment to tfae pasi could be made only by followmg a proper procedure for selecticn and in cases concemed, in consultation with the Piiblic Service Conunission." 7. In Ihe light ofthe above, fhe petitioners canftot claim any regularization or reinstatement in sen'ice on the basis of their appointments vrfiich was temporary and not in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitiou is dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihu'tri Judge sahu