f; ' - r^ /V-) 's. 2 —-'.''J J- -'.-L^ HS3H COuRT OF %DHYA ERADESH AT JABAI,i:'US. iISC.PSTITtDBH N0./7>4//^ O? 1993. .!-STCTI'3172;R; le Nagar 2'Iigam Samastha KarmacharJ. Sangh, Biiaspur, through its .t'iahamantri Kashi prasad Karosiya, Hunicfpal Corporation Biasaspur. 2. Laxman S/o Baran, Asst» Ma.li, .unicipal Gorporation, fflilaspur,, Versus — REg.POHDSNTSs^l" ^unicipal Corporation Bilaspur through its Administrator. 2. Comroi.ssioner, i''^inialpal Corporation, ^s^ 5"^~s> ^^- '^s1-"""^, 1 t.^0^< ^, %.\pR-^ Bilaspur. 3. Director, City Administration, I'ladhya iBradesh, Bhopal 4t State of Iladhya Fradesh through its Secretary local self governinsnt, Bhopal. :*'' '... ;;?^S:=? '.,HS:t' ~i~S--""' T^,..-.ii»'"'***°*°'" ' ' "' " . ?<<~N?s> p^:CTIpKI_UK[DaR_^Trc:LE_226^217_. TOS 5C1^33::CTUST3: .'—'.>'\'°t Nt^ '..y'\). ,;i.E,.83<,«i4»j; 'w ^ OF li-IDIA FOS A mCT E:T THE NATURE OF IWOAWS, CSRTIQRAt'I AHD FCR NiiCESSARY DIRSCTIO!J3 s ^^&^^/- ; 1 Sa.vSfteea&StSS.SaM /' 5'/ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATnSGARH: BILA8PUR Sin^e Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. No. 3967 of 1993 Petitioners Versus Respondent Nagar N^am Samasth Kannachari Satigh Bilaspiu- & another Municipal Corporation Bilaspur & others Shri Ram Kuinar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachawaha, counsel for fhe respondents No. 1 aad 2. Shri V.V.S. Moorfhy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Paael lawyer for the respondent No. 4. ORAL OH^ER (31" July, 2006) 1. The present petition ffled by the petitioners, who were appointed 14 to 3 years back on daily wages basis on different posts of Class-IV by the respondents/Corporation. The petitioners seek regularization of fheir services and furfher alteinativety grant of regular pay-scale. ~ 2. The petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis not as per fhe constitutional scheme of employment aad ia accordance wifh law. There was no pubUc advertiseinent invituig applications for suitable candidates. The appoiatments wcre luade on fhe basis of direct appUcations from the petitioners. 3. The respondents/State, by ^etter dated 9.11.1999, has directed aU the Municipal Corporations to appoint einployees on daity wages toasis only ia case ofTUgency and that too with prior permission of the State Govemment. No right accrued in favour of thc Bablu vnthin six. rrumlhs fram. this date. We ctlso darify that regularization, ifany already made, but noi subjudice, need not be reopened based. on this judgment, but there shciuSd he no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularsing or Tnaking permanent, those no( duly appointed as per the (X>ns1ituiional scheme. 5. In view ofthe dictiiin laid down by Non'ble the Supreiae Cotirt in the above judgtnent and order, I do not find any merit ui this petition. The petition is disiaissed. However, the respondents/Corporation are directed to coasider the cases ofthe petitioners as per directk>n of Hon'ble the Suprenie Court, as stated above, as one-tiine ineasure, in acconiance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotn Judge