"I y a,,fi»'( <^'1 c' HIGH COTJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPIJR Writ Petition No. 1203 of2(M)0 PETITIONERS RESPONDENT8 '^ 1. Virendra Upadhyay S/o Shri D.D. Upadhyay aged about years. 2. Ramakant Tiwari S/o Shri Bharatlal Tiwari aged about 27 years. 3. Devashish Majumdar S/o Dr. A. K. Majumdar, aged about 36 years. 4. Santosh Kiimar Sahu, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri C.R. Sahu. 5. Shatni^ianlal Sahu S/o Late Hukumdas Sahu aged about yeara. 6. Shyamacharan Choubey S/o Shn N.P. Choubey aged about 28years. 7. Siiresh Barve S/o Late Balaram Barve, aged about 28 years. 8. Birendra Sin^i S/o Shri Mangal Yadav, aged about 27 years. 9. Shri Vishnu Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Chaitram Sahu , aged about 28 years. t.Buduram Yadav S/o Shri Ranmar Yadav Aged about 28 years. 1 l.Gajendra Patale S/o K.T. Patale, aged about 37 years. 12-Dilip Kumar Choucfiiaiy, S/'o Kaluram Choudhary, aged about 35 years. 13-Maikulal Sahu S/o Late Khambhanlal Sahu aged about 38 years. 14.Rajeev Yadav S/o Chhabilal Yajdav aged about28 years. 15.Smt. Draupadi Yadav (Correct sumame Lwlhi) W/o Shri Suresh LocUii Aged about 25 years. 16. Gopal Rao S/o Late Komal Rao aged about 32 years. 17. Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o TukelSahu, aged about 30 years. 18. Keshav Yadav S/o Madhav Yadav aged about 29 years. 19.RAdhelal Deshmukh S/o Late Dayaram Deshmukh aged about 33 years. 20.Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Late Bhau Nishad aged about 27 years. 21.8mt. Jewantin BaiW/o Shri Peetambar Nishad, aged aboirt 35 years. 22. Mangala Nishad S/o Bhanu Nishad aged about 40 yeais. 23. Shri Dayaram Yadav, S/o shri Janaklal aged about 29 years. 24. Shusheel Deep S/o Late Kamal Deep agded about 27 years. 25.Babalu Singhlate Sajan Singh aged about 20 years. 26.Jeewanlal Sahu S/o Shri Bhuwanlal Sahu, aged about 27 years. All resident ofAnjora Distt Durg (MP). VERSU8 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, throug^i it Secretary Agricutture Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 2. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, through Registrar Krisak Nayr, Raipur (MP). 3. Dean, Vetemary Husbandary DistrictDmg (MP). (WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTmiON OF INDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Sattsh K. Asnihotri. J.) Present : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate witfa Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Alok Bakhshi, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Anupam Diibey, Advocate, on behalfofShri Ramakant Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 ORALORDER (Passed on 04"' ofMai-ch, 20S8) 1. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondenits. 2. On perusal of the pleadings and documents appeuded thereto, it appears Ihat, tfae petitioners were appointed on different pmts on daily wages basis. The petitioners have not filed copies of a{yointments order but copies of other relevant documeiits have been filed, wherein it is indicated that the petitioners were working as daily wagers. 3. The State Govemment,, by order dated 31.12.99 held that any appointment made on daily wages after 01.01.89 will be held as illegal and the ofiBcers appointing daily wagers be held responsible and the payment made thereon may be reeovered &ora the ofBcers concemed. 4. The petitioners seek qiiashit^ ofthe order dated 27.01.2000 (Amiexure P/l) and further a direction to the respondents to regularize all the daily wages workers appointed since 1988. It is informed Ihat at that point oftime there was a cu'cular dated 31.12.88. As per circular dated 25.09.98 wherein it was providedthat all the employees appointed oa daily wages basis prior to 31.12.88 shaU be considered for regiilarization. 5—BeIhat as it may, now with the passage oftitne, law has changed. AU the decisions directing regiilarization of the employees appoiirted, dehors tfae constitution scheme of employmettf and not iu accordance with law, unpliedly stand oven-uled, in view ofthe decision ofthe Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka i.-uoissnuuioQ soiAjsg oi{qnj aqi IJ^IA uoipi(nsHoo ui 'paiusouoo sgseo ui pue uoipsps joj wnpsoojd jsdojd v 8uiAkO((oj Xq Xpo speiu sq p(noo isod sip 0} insuqrooddB IIB uaqM ^sod aip ui pauugaoo guiaq joj uot)Bps<fa8 aysmySa^ jo Aiosqi aifi gsioAui Vsasceo iiosjad qons "sjnjBu ro pnpBfluoo jo [Bnsreo 'Aiejodius^ Sroaq iDauiynodde &ipjo ssousnbssuoo aipjo areAW si gq 'sjnpsoojd jo sajiu lUBASpj sip Xq psziugooaj se uoipaps jsAud ^ uo paseq ^ou SI VS3SCK@V3v3 SC^ pUB jayOA IW1SB3 JO [BnpBJ}UOO B SB ).U8IUa8B3U8 ia8 jo }uaiu^ojdiua Arejoduisi ^ sja(us uo&isd B usq^ •^u 'aiqissmusd lou si qoiijM lusuqrooddB oiiqnd jo spoiu J&I{)OUB Sui^sjo sq \\u& ^i 'os 3uio3 ;<g '&yaavKwjad psiiupuoo aq 0} pspajip aq pjnoqs pa^oiduo io3 <C(pnsBO jo ^(uejodiuai SBI{ oqM uosjsd B ^ip MSIA aq^ s^ oi pire luaiupiioddB jo aiusqos (euopniiisuoo aip uosinaf oi aiBudtuddB sq y>u ppoA }i 'suop punojg ^etp uo ing •S)83 ai( WASfevyA. aidsoaB pue pooqi(8Aii siq ^no 3?[3 01. SB os )Bai (o(diua swos joj SuiqaiBss nsaq SAeq }i^nu aij 30uis-q|Sus( S,UUB ^e i.ou -uiESjeq 01 uopisod e ui y>u si aq ^q} siui sq ABIU y •saAs usdo qjiM ptaia(0)dio3 sip sidsooB sy •iuaiu^o(diu8 siqjo ainiBU sqtjo SJBMB y>u si 'sin(eu m pnseo jo Aiejodiua^ jaipra luaiusSeSua ue syIsooB OIJA uosjsd sqiji SB ^ou si y 'suii^jo qiSnaj sjqBjspisuoo e J<g S3SBO SUIOS UI pUB SUut SUIOS JOJ p8~»|JOM SEl( pSIUSOUOO UOSJsJ 9^ pip pej sip Xq paA:«AsSJB s)jnoo aip. 'pisueuuad speiu m pazuB(ti8aj sq tensBO jo AiBjoduoi 'syiauquiodde T/SI^ Suipanp 8|n{A 'Sfru aspim SB psAjssqo iJno^ smsjdng sip '(wdns) sjsipo pire (g) lAapemn 'SA sjsqio pire roptBiUB^jo swg <AiE)ajoagjo asBO aip uj 'y • i^uiS vcey^ 'sf^ uopBJodjOQ •podsiiejj. pco^ 8}K(s •j'fi pue sjsipo pue '(I'fljo a^g 'sj^ ('dioy pdioTOny^ MOU) B>|ipdBqep( jeS^^ ' SfSVftO pUB pBqSUB^ IpUB^ UBpBdyi n(su5[ eXf^g -tffi •SA UBAIJ, pesejj jspung '^ siatpo pue o^g BJBEppg vJpaevQ "j[ •SA sjsqp paB OJ.gg'dV (lyv) J3°®0synwoov ale 8i"oS 'V1W3 suiaidns sq^ ^q suoispep SnOI-IBA UI UO JS^B[ pSMOROJ SBM qoiqM AB| jo uopBiounua jesp uMop pre( scq unoo srosjtdns 8{q,uoH sqj, "^sjaipo pue IASQ Biufi •SA sisipo PUB 7. In the li^it ofthe above, the petitioners caimot claim any regularization or reinstatement in service on the basis of their appointments which was temporary and not in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agiiiisoti-i Judge Eahu