tk^^, ^. BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. <^^(5-^~ QF 2010 PETITIONER ^-.0. • •^r.- ..^- ^^' RESPONDENTS :—1 Vikki s/o Kanhaiya, aged about 21 years, occupation- Daily wages eniployee relating to work of cleansing sanitation,conservancy,c/oPresident, C.G.Karmchrisangh.Safai Kamgar prakosth,Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the ^' Secretary, Department of Town Administration 85 Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. TheMunicipal ' Corporation, Rajnandgaon,Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA I.- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ICj± : HON'BLE SHRS PRASHANT KUMAR MSSHRA. J. TLT W.P.(Sli No.7505 of 201 S Versu' State of Chhattisgarh and another. UNDERARTICLE 226 QF THECQNSTITUTiON OF Appearance: Shri Sudhir Verma, counsel for petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panei Lawyer tor the State. (28/01/2011) Foliowlng oral order of the Court was passed ieing aggrieved by the -action of the respondent Municipal Corporation to remove the daily wagers pursuant to the memo dated 23-9-2010 (Annexure - P/1), the petitloners have preferred these writ 3etitions seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to continue their sen/ices as daily wagers and to take steps to regularize thelr sen/ices. (2) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties joinUy submit that the similariy situated cases came up for conslderation before this Court and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court allowed those writ petitions by order dated 20-1-2011 passed in Dhaniram & Orhers v. State of ChhaW.sgatts & Others WP (S) No.6798 of 2010 (decided on 20-1-2011$ and other connected matters. (3) in view of Tair submission made by the learned counsel appearins for the parties, these petitlons are also allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Dhaniram (supra). (4) However, it is made clear that this Court has neither declded the right or the entitle.ment of petltloner for regularization nor has passed the order to regularize him and this order for quashing the action of the respondente shall not be construed as an order for continuing the petitioner or other simi'ariy placed person on their posts even if no work Is avallabie and contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme ,;~~'»~1>, "^ \h, .,^<i , 1 TJ] '>'-,!<•'•' r^ ^o Court in the case of Prakash and Others vs. State ofBlhar and Others reported in 2010 (4) SCC 179 as in the subsequent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that regularization of only irregularly appointed persons have been directed in the matter of Secretaiy, State of and Others Vs. Umadevl (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and with regard to daily-wagers directions contained in para 8 and 55 of Umadevl $3) (supra) are appiicable and not that contained in para 53. Para 7,15,17 and 18 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Satya Prakash (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- "7. We are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. The appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Councii. 15. In our view, the appellants herein.would fail under the category of persons mentloned in paras 8 and 55 of the judgment and not in para 53 of the judgment in Umsdevi (3). 17. The appellants stated that they had undergone a seiection process held fourteen years back, following an advertisement pubtished in the year 1995 but the merit list was neither prepared nor published. Selection process thought undertaken by the Council was not completed and now the Council is no more in existence. However, if the Board proposes to undertake any regylar selection process to fill up the posts, the appiications, if any submitted by the appellants may also be considered after givinfl age relaxation. 18. In Umadevi (3) case In para 55 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench has also permitted such persons to participate in seiecfion process waiwng the age relaxation and ilving ihe weightage for having been engaged or worked in the Department for a significantperiodoftime." (5) In view of the above the writ petition is a!lowed with the above observation. ___-— n (6) No order as to costs. , '__—--—-— —~ Sdll- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge