ll lil IINl.^ :1 1 U :1 11 ^. \^\ IN iiy£sdiaj:i£;QURTGF WiiiiT PETiTiON N0 1 l 2-S O 0F z004 PETITiONE >t^^ Mohan Aqed Post- Baii Bilaspur Rarn SA.) Nanku^ivd Rarn abo^jt 30 years F|/o Gram n isari, T^khiatpur, Distr ict VERSES RESPONDENT j. ^^.^^ 7 ".<^ym-^s / (C-G) State of Qhhattisqam Through :| DeparLmen[ Raipur (Q.G. Secretary Exciye D.K. Bhavan 1. ^ Excise Colmmissioner Excise D^paftrnent Raipur(G.@) | ' A^Ri^^tant Cnmm^innRr Exciye D^paftrnent DisttBiiaypur (C.G) WRJT PETJTIONUNDERART-sgLt.^gfi^QLln^XSmSlMj.lu^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 1290 of 2004 u AAohan Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh br, Shailesh Ahuja, tearned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer for respondents Nos,l to 3. 1--.4 OR D E R (25/10/2005) This oral order is passed by Hon'bie Shri Justice Suail Kumar Sinha, J Heard finaily with the consent of both the parties. By way of this Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for his reinstatement on the post of Chowkidar in Excise Department at the Collectorate rate. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Chpwkidar on Collectorate rate for a period of 89 days yide order dated 25/06/96, This is his first appointment order* The copyof this order has been filed as Anhexure P-1, After issuance of the said appointment order, the petitioner joined and worked as Chowkidar for a long period as many such orders were issued to him time to time and ultimateiy the last order was issued to. the petitioner on 30/06/97 9 -2.- ^ ^^ and he was continuing for the next 89 days by virtue of this order. During the tenure of this order, a Criminal Case under Section 376 (2) (G) of the IPC was registered against the petitioner and the ctiarge sheet was also filed* A session trial was conducted vide ST No.410/96 by the Sessions Court, Bilaspur, and uitimately vide order dated 23/7/97, the petitioner was punished for- 10 years R.I. and with a fine of Rs.2000/-. It appears that thereafter,the petitioner filed an cppeal before the High Court of AAadhyd Pradesh, which was decided vide Criminal Appeai No.2361 and 1581/97 and the same was dismissed, After dismissai of the aforesaid appeal by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, two appeals vide Nos.858-859/2000 were preferred before the Apex Court and the Apex Court after hearing theseappeals aiiowed the some by the judgment and order dated 9th October, 2001 and the conviction of the petitioner as recorded by the Triat Court and upheld by the High Court was set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him- The Judgment of the Apex Court passed on 09/10/2001 is filed as Annexure P-2. The case of the petitioner is that due to arrest in Criminal Case, referred to above in the year 1997, the petitioner couid not continue in his services on the basis of the last appointment order issued on 30/06/1997 for a period of 89 days. Therefore, he ctaims (^ -5- /vv^. that when he has been acquitted from the Apex Court in the aforesaid Criminat Appeal, he should be reinstated and if possible he should be awarded with the legally entitled duespayabte to him. The submission of tearned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and he could not continue with his services on account of illegal arrest of the petitioner, he may be directed to be reinstated on the same capacity and on the same post on which he was working in the year 1997 i.e* on the capacity of daiiy wages emptbyee on the Collectorate rate. Opposing this argument advanced by learned counset for the petitioner, State counsel submits that since the appointment of the petitioner was not a regutar appointment and he remained absent from his duty in the pet^iod for which he was appointed and thereafter, he continued to remain absent, therefore, after the tapse of 89 days from the bst appointment order issued to the petitioner which according to them was issued on 30/06/97, the petitioner is having no entitlement either for reinstatement or for continuation in the aforesaid service* I have heard the learned counset for the parties at length and also perused the records filed alongwith the writ petition. The first appointment of the petitioner on daiiy wages was made for 89 days on 25/6/1996 and according to the pleadings of the petitioner he -^- l^ .'^x, p' continued up to 30/06/1997 and on 30/06/1997 the iast appointment order was issued to him. The order dated 30/06/97 shows that the nature of the appointment of the petitioner was that of a daily wager and he was appointed for a period of 89 days on the Cotlectorate rate and the aforesaid appointment was totaily of temporary nature. After this tetter of appointment, no other letl-ers have been issued to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of this CGSC, after termination of 89 ciays from 30/06/1997, the petitioner will have no right to continue in service unless a fresh order of oppointmentis issued to him or his appointment is extended by some subsequent order by the State ^overnment or* the concerned department. The petitioner is not in a position to show that any such order was issued to him after completion of 89 days which is after the order dated 30/06/1997. Therefore, the legal position emerges that after termination of 89 days, after 30.6.1997 if no other order is issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will have no lien over the job for which he was appointed on temporary basis for a period of 89 days only. Another* aspect of the matt-er is that when the appointments are made for certain periods then all the rights of the person employed under such appointment is subject to the completion of the )eriod oniy and his rights under the aforesaid cppointment can be ^ ^- ,:\^Y \ agitated only if the period of appointment is either extended or some other order is issued in his favour. Here in the present case, the petitioner could not appear in service froma particular day which may be as an effect of his arrest made in a case but the fact remains that his services were not continued after completion of 89 days from 30/06/1997. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner will have no right either for reinstatement or for any kind of monetary benefit whatsoever is cbimed by the petitioner, The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. At this stage, leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that ^r since the petitioner remained absent no fault on his part as he was falsely implicated in a case and ultimatety was acquitted by the Apex Court, therefore, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authority and the concerned authorit/ may be directed to consider his representation for his fresh appointment subject to availabilit/ of the post as cn today. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, there is no necessity for giving any direction to the concemed authority. The petitioner is always free to file a representation before the concerned authority and the concerned authority is also free to ^ consider the representation of the petition&r fited before him. However, this Court can only observe that if such a representation is fiied by the petitioner then it is expected that the concerned aul+iority would consider the representation of the petitioner, subject to the availability of the post, scheme and requirement for his reappointment/reengagement on Collectorate rate in accordance with law, With the aforcsaid observations, this petition stands finaily disposed of C.C. as per ruies, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge