^^ ".•w ^ frit Petition (S) No.367 of ; Y. Senapati VERSUS State of M.P. & others. Shri H.B. Agrawal learned Sr. counsel v/ith Mira Jaiswal for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur Dy. AG for the respondents /State. in the instant petition the petitioner is praying for the followini reiiefs: i) ii) iii) N) That ihe applicant services be reinstated by treating him in duty and Annexure A-9 be quashed being illegal and bad. That the services of the appllcant be aiso regularized tike Dilip Kumar Gupta as mentioned in Annexure A-4 and A-10, with all back wages and seniority like hlm with ail service benefits. The cost of petition be awarded, and Any other relief which the Honourable Tribunal may deem fit be also awarded. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submlts that the petitioner has worked as a Sime keeper on daily wage basis In the office of Executive Engineer, Jagdaipur from 18.11.1981 to 31.7.1985 but he was not allowed to work with effect from 31.7.1985 by an orai order. He Turther submits that on the one hand the petitioner has not been permitted to work as a daiiy wage empioyee but on the other hand respondents have permitted number of his junior daiiy wage empioyees to work as is clear from annexure A-10. Thus the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to remstate hlm in service. He also prays that Annexure A-9, the letter written by the Sectional Officer, In charge, Toll Tax. Booth, NH Sub Divlsion, h^nker may be set aside in which it is stated that work of the petitioner -was not satisfactory and that he has faited to give satisfactory explanation for his absence. Lastiy he submits that the petitioner is also entitled for regularization. 3. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that as the petitioner worked for a few years purely as a daily wage employee and he was appointed just to meet the exigency of the department, he cannot claim regularization. He further submits Shat after refusal to work, the petitioner was not taken back in the employment firstiy because his work was not satisfactory and secondly his services were not required by the respondents. 4. it is not in dispute that the petitioner was a daiiy wage employee and he was not appointed under any statutory ruie or against a sanctioned vacant post, rather his appointment was just to meet the exigency of the sltuation which does not in any way confer a right on the petitioner to continue in service. Thus in these circumstances the petitioner has no right to claim elther reinstatement in service or regularization. 5. Accordingly, the petition has no substance and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. ——_-—— Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge «\°