5ing-ga’ gawk? G (ifw‘ak IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W. P. (S) No. 5‘3 35 /2006 PETITIONER Ramesh Saxena S/o ShriBhagawan Das Saxena R/o Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir Kota, Tah.Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C‘G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh x .94; Thmugh :- Secretaiy, Department of ter Resources Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-in—Chief, te Department of War Resources Raipur (C=G.) 3. Superintending Engineer Department of Water Resources Hasdeo Kachhar,Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Ecutive Engineer, Vidyut/Yantriki Light Machjnary Nalku & Gets, Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) x” ” g Wa «r , xe p HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR $ingl¢ Bench: Hon'ble 5hri Sa'l’ish K. Agnihofri, J. W. P.($) No. 5385 of 2006 Pefi‘rioner : Rumesh Saxena Versus Responden‘rs Sta're of Chha'rfisgarh & Other-s /¢:"> Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for 'H'Ie pefifioner. 5hri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for The respondenls. O R D E R (6* October, 2006) 1. learned counsel for 'l'he pe‘fifioner submifs Thaf ‘rhe pefifioner was appoinfed prior 1'o 31.12.1988 and cf presen‘l' he is working as Labour (class-IV employee) in the 2. respondent/deparfmem as daily wagera The pefifioner has filed fhis pe'l'i'rion praying for a relief in terms of 'ihe judgment and order passed by 1he Supreme Cour'r in 'fhe case of 7‘ ' Secretary. Sfa‘l’e of Kamafaka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Othersi and Mineral Explore-Hon Corporation Employees’ Union Employees’ v. Mineral Explorafion Corporafion Limifed & Anna 3. The Supreme Courf in fhe case of Secretary, Sfa‘re of Kamafaka and Others (91pm), in para 53 has held as under: “53. ..The question of regUlarization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities Z § should fake sfeps fa regularizens a one-fime measure, 1he services of such irregularly appoin‘fed, who have worked for fen years or more in duly sanc+ioned posfs buf no‘f under cover of orders of fhe courfs or of Tribunals and should furfher ensure Tho? regular reeruifmenfs are underfaken To fill Those vacant sanctioned pos‘rs 'rha't require fo be filled up, in cases where Temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. " ‘ h ! The process musT be seT in moTion wiThin six monThs from This ' daTe. We also clarify T'haT regularization, if any already made, buf noT sub judice, need noT be reopened based on This judgmenf, bUf fhere should be no furTher bypassing of fhe consTiTuTional requiremenf and regularising or making permanent Those noT duly appoinTed as per The consfiTuTiona scheme." 4. The Supreme CourT in fhe case of Mineral Exploration Corpora‘tion Employees Union (supra) in para 17 has held as under — “17 IT is seen from The above paragraph ThaT ‘this Cour-f direcTed The Union of India, The STaTe GovernmenTs and ‘their insfrumen'talifies To regularize as a one-Time measure, The l services of such irregularly appoinTed workman, who have H I ‘ worked under cover for Ten of orders years or of more The courTs in duly or‘of sancTioned Tribunals posTs and bu't should noT l l furTher ensure ThaT regular recruiTmenTs are underTaking To fill Those vacanT sancTioned posTs ThaT require To be filled up, in cases where Temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.” Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, having regard To The facTs and circumsTances of The cme and wiThouT expressing any opinion on meriTs of The case, The requesT made by learned counsel for The peTiTioner is jusT. fair and reasonable. Therefore, The i pe‘H‘Honer is (mowed +0 make a defailed represen'l'afion, raising all his grievances annexing a capy of ‘l'he wrif'pe‘ti1ion and ifs annexures To #he concerned au'rhor-iiy within a period of fen days from today and 'fhe concerned au'l’horhy id direci'ed +0 decide fhe represenfafion wifhin one mon‘i'h from The daie of ifs receip'r offer considering fhe poin-rs raised by fhe pe'rifioner, in on objective manner, on its own merits, in accordance with iaw. 6. With the directions aforesaid, ihe petition stands disposed of. No order as To costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihom Judge w. ~Jhwh_ ‘[(2ooa) 4 sec 1} 251T zoos (7) 5c 151} Babiu ’