^—^f^^ (^ ^ i^"/o /<t[£SS3i BEPOEIS THB M,r, STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABAL^U^ O.A. N0. 3--; OF 199®. APPLICANT Rajendr.a p rasad Soni » aged ^bou'fc 26 years, Son o£ Shri Math^xa Prasad Soni* R/o In Hoiiae of Suresh Ram Teke» Naya paxai Antagarh Distt ^ KanXex, Bastaf -Versus- RESPONDENTS !• State of M«P. Through the SCGxetary, Department of Women & Child Development, Vallabh Bhawan» BHOPAL. 2• Th® Gommi ssioner, Department of Women and Child Developmenit BHOPAL. 3« The District Women & Child Development officer» jagdalpur. Distt* Bastar, 4, The Project officer, Department of Women & Child Developmentt, ANTAGARH. APPLICATION UNDER SSCTION 19 OF THS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT t9 85. III'll ;1 ^ti (^\ HIGHCOURfOFCI-JHATTiSG^RHiBII-ASPUR SinaleBench: HOn'bleShriMahihdr^MohahShriyastava.J AftPLICANT JRlSRONDEDNTS i^esent: WitPetitiOri^lNo.1772^005 Raj0ndraPrasadS6nJ Verskis ~ Stet&ofMadh^ PradeshanciQthere |SffiriCtiaridreshShri^st^,counsel^ |ShriVii|iodTekam,Rane!LawyerfortheState/r^ ^- ORDERfaRAU ,rd (Passecron3raoflVlay. 20105 Bythispetition,thep^itionerhasa^iledIegal|tyandyalidJtyof6 dated 30-10-1^8 (AnnexuFe A-5), by ^which, beendisGontJnued.L^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^r ^) Case of the petjtioner is that he was irijtialjy employed as^^^^ dailywage basjs under affi intertm^afrangementi services of fie petjtiooer have in the Department 6f Women & ChJldWeJfareProject,XntagarHvideorderda{ed 3Q-12-1S&6 ^ ^ issued hythe Proiect pflicer, Department ofVVomen & 1:;1'':'4'- :';.:;.''8:':^... Antagarhl Thereafter, anbtherorderw^^p^^ 2)tby which, petitioner was appojnte^ daystowprkasaDriver.Whileth&petitionerv^ssoc^^ j'-;,:.-.:.'i.;-:.^ •,;^..::;.;..'^ 22-03-11997 (Annexure A-3), he was sent t6 jDantew^ja al^ng vwth -^hicle 'i,:: No.B.D.Q.989. Therealte^, ^e again tans^ 1 28-06-'|997 ^nnexure ^4) whereyl^ as jE)n\^er |ofj||ebicle ^^^;;:l/'i^.'^''';;^Q.'?^^ No.TBI-746. Accordjng^^^^^ empIoymentwasissued^n2@-C^1^^for;apenodup^^^^^^ accountofappointmentofr^ular^n^mbentt^^^w^ ^.-.-_..—„-__„.—-— —.'L— ^ orderdated 30-10^1998 ^"h©xureA^,servicesof^^^fc^petjtioner were djscontinued. (3) Submissionofleamedcounsejforthepetitionerjsthatdjscontinuanceof semces of the petitioner is ynjust, illegal and djscriminatory. It is argued that after the appointment c^ the petitjonerj various appoinlments were made at dJfFerent places namely Narayanpur, Bijapur, Jagdalpur, Bhairamgarh, Keshkal and while they were ailowed to continue |at theijr respectjve place ofposting, the petitioner was reljeved. Submission of leamedj counsel jforthe petitioner is that theterminatjonofthepetjtionerwasmalafidejinasmuchasotherdrjverswere continued atdJfFerent places including one Madhav SlfiukJa but the petjtioner was djscontinued though post of tt»e Driver was ^yjng vacant and the respondents ought to have adjusted the petitioner against available vacancy. It has also been claimed tiiat as the ipetitioher was | worked as a Driver contjnuously from year 1996 till the issuawe of the impugned order of terminatibn dated 30-10-1998, he is eilititled | to be regularized. Though he submitted a representetion <Annexure A-6) before the resppndent authority, but his grievance has not been redressed. has also beeri argued that petitioner has not paid wages for foEur days Iri June, 1998, Nine days tn July, ^998, Nine days in August, 1998, Eight da^ in September, 1998 arad six^ days jn Oetpber, 1998.' . , - ! ^ ,,''.,,^,1'•.•'..,•..•.•;:'..,/•• { ..:.i.\. I.. ;.'1/,:.;. .Y'; (4) Per contra, submjssionof Jeamed counselfor the respondentsis that the petitioner's appointment was pyrely a stop gap arrangem^nt to cope up vs/ith the requirement of the post of! Dnver at Antagarh Prqect onl ,account of riQn- availabiljty of a regular incumbent of the pc^. It is also ^ubmitted that the appojntmentofthep^jfjonerwasipuretyonadailyw^ thedueselectJonprocedyreinacTOi^ricewithithe^ Dajlyvi^e appojntmenfo1|th@petitionerwas^ 1^ NoveFTibe^ ^1998, a Tegylai' ^river i||tt^|B|ojiot|tt -3 l\\ Antagarh, as such, sewices ofthe petttionerwere dispensedwith from^ i ' ! .: " '^ ! !' .' .' ' " ,! • . .. ';':: •- " 1.1.' 1.1 '••1 . 1 ' • .' 1' ' '- 1998 videimpugnedordeFdated 30-10^1998. j i , . ' i ,' ' . • • • . :'• '. ' . . . -: . ' . ./ • • .: ' '" • -'• " . '; ; •• ' • • .. '' ^ ' .'.• • : / ' -' '-• •".: : 1 'l: '! .':• .••; ".•'• -'i.: '. ." '.., ''.. ••' ' (5) From the injtial appointment orcler ahd subsequent orders issued in favour ofthe petitioners^IIed by the res{>ectjve parties, jt is clear that petittoner's appointment wasonly as a stop-gap 4rran9ement' on daily ^9e basis for a fixed period without cfeating any right fo holdj the post. There is no material on reeord to show that thej petitioner y^s irecruited against the vacant sanctioned postGfDriverbyfolJowingtherecruitm^ntrul^sorbyfollowJngtheconstitutional .I..'1 IAi'/:l':1 -^'l'\'';t';<; :-'''^ . procedure. A perusat oftheimpugnediorderclated 30-10-1998 ^nnexureA-S) clearly shows that th® charge of jntegrated child development prpject. s ' .:• • : ' \ '' : ' .. • ' '. i'- " ' • Bhanupratappur was handed over toj Projefct Officer, Antagarh and regular driver working at Bhanupratappur was; sent ito Antagarh as Driver where the Driver was working. This resulted in discbntinuance of daily wage emplbyment of the petjtioner as regular Driver waS posted in his place for operating the vehicle.PetJtibner'ssubmissJonisthatotherdriversw&rkJrigatdifersrt after the appointment of the -petitioner, working contjnued at their respective pjace.therefore, the petitioner ought to have continued on the post of Driver, eannot be accepted. Moreover, thepetitjoner had no tightjto hoSdthepost.As regular Driver came to be posted at a place Where the petitjoner was working, the respondente were justified in discontinujng the daily wage employment of thepetitioner. [ (6) Under these circumstances, in view of the juctgmpnt of the Supreme Court in the os^f^ Se^r^iy.State ofl^rnatakaandOthers^^^^ (3) and others ^upra); Government of Andhra Praidesh ancf others vs. K. i. '• :'-; '^ . .• Brahmanandam and^ers, (2008) 5 SCG 241 and Officiat Uquidatpr^ Dayanand and others.j {2008) 10 SCC 1 , the petitioner is neJther entitled to be reinstated in service nor entitled to any direction for1givji|ig him empjoyment. However, it is seen fhat petitioner has raised grievance|with rega^ iSUWS9S^C3SS!i9iSS iSiSKSyS!SHVKSS^^ ^%II Jiilj?iiI®t%^Iill%iSII!il.%^^^^^^ -^. K p^menf of wages in respect crf certainl period as^^^^^m Respondente have however denied this ^spectjwhile stating tHat th^ petitjoner has been paid v^ges for the days he h^s worked and discharge hls ^Juttes. It will be openforthe petitionerto^approach^^ having worked. In Gase, a}:>prc®chjs madje by the petitjoner to respondent No.3, ^'.;^:;-^l::^'.j^'^^ the respondentNo^shallmakedueandlproperverification^^b^ r^ardtoallegednon-paymeritofwag^^ i1"'^:.'/;l''^..^;;:':.^-/';-;:'';^F:- .;1;^^^ l^jt isfound thatwages duringthat peripd tiave riotbe^ lb61pajct.,,:'^,;,.1,;/':., \..'..,^^ (7) The petitiQn is finally disjsQ^ed ^ jcost Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude