^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF .JUDICATURE ATBILASP f°> 2-0F 2003 WRIT PETIXON N0. PETITIONER 43 i^:::"' •• . -<\ - »*-' ../^c^ ^^^" ^yy v^/ {^ RESPONDE^TS: shunrifa Tiffla, S/o Age Aout 37" Ctaaqsiion : Daly eaiyloyee, Posted at C.G.S.E.B Rffl^ttL, Efatt Ragarii (C.G) 'R/O Jndji^ A'a^ir (Ii,ynrtif?a1^) 'K(r M7'. VEJ^US (}.?' Ilie Stats of CaAatesgadi, fcroi.^1 Secretery CG.S.E.B T^iymya, Raipur(C.G.) (2) Jdnt Sm-etaay C.G.S.E.B Rapur (C.G.) .E.BRaipur(C.G.) ^WRIT PETITION VIA2261227JS¥THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA ^^ PETmONER WRITPmTFKMNQ.'1192tf2(XB ShamUumathTigga. RESPONDENT8 VEKSUS TlieState ofCN^tisgaifa &CWl»re. WRITPETmCNUNDERARTKt^ 226327 OFTH^OQNST^^ .'.C^INB^...:.1..1 • •:.' / SB: HmrUe an-tSattatiK. Present: 8tin8uml8aliu,A<lvoeatefw^petitiQn Shri N.N.Roy, Advocateferthe respQndents. (MUMai^MlAD (Passedon 08" d^rof Fehraaty,201I) 1. By this petition, tto petiticmer seete qmsh^ ^ l^ 28;I040Q2(AnnexureP/6)affldfurtheF,adire(^<m^^to autfaorities toregulanze hisservice. 2. The iadisputalrie facts, as projerted by the petittoner is fl^ flie petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis as Labour in Ifae yew 1982.Tl reafter, he coHtinuedtiU 15.07.1984. Ite semcesofthe petitioner was di^ngaged on a«»untof Ifae faet to was airested ia res 3. According to leamed couasel fin' tiie prtitioner, thie crnmaal trial resutted into accpiittal vide order dated 12.6.1993. TlB»s,1faepetitionar is eatjQed to reindatement ia ^serviee. " e petitioner has made Ihereafter anapplicationon 26.0830fffi (Annexure P/5) for lainstatemesA aad regularization ofliis sarvice MI the postf of Labour, which was rejeeted on 28.10.2002^Annexure P/6). 4. On the other hand, Shn Roy, teatned coun^ ^leanng ^ ; respondents subnrits iflhat ths ^petitiomr had iwMteedssinlfc^ die ' v ''..^s t^.-.-S.f'^SWSsS :st%ip i."K,t^swSKSSS3' respondent-Board for only two years and that too, on daily wages basis. Thus, he cannot claim reg^ilarization or reinstatemMt in service. 5. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the plea<lings and documeuts appeaded Ifaereto. 6. There is no dispute that the appointaieut ofthe petitioner was on daily wages basis, and not in accordance with tiie constitutional scheme of employment. Thus, the appointment ofthe petitioner cannot be held as legal appointment. Even ifthe petitioner was acquitted oflfae crumnal charges, that does not entitle him for reinstatement or regularizatioa onthepost,whichitselfwasn<)tlegal. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Olhers vs. Umadevi (3) and Other^, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticab Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd?, OfficialLiquidator v. Dayanand and other/ andState ofPunfab and Others v. Surjit Singh and CWiers). 7. Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts oflfae case on hand, the petition, being bereftofmerit, is aecordingly dismissed. 8. No order asto cwts. SdJ Satish K. Agmhotri Judge Arait " (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007)18cc 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC I -4 (2009) 9 SCC 514