IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (cg) W010 $Wi§i£ @Eém Petitioner Smt. Vaidehi Dubey w/o ShriVijay Kumar Dubey, aged 40 years, Designation - Naimittik Karmchari, Nagar Panchayat - Parodi, Tah. Saja, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus /V 1. The State of Chhattishgarh, Through the Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan and Vikash Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Nagar Panchayat Parpodi, Through — The Chief Municipal Officer, Parpodi, Resgondents Tah Saja Distt. Durg(C.G.) Wnt Petltlon under Article 226 of th gprogna wrlt Petitione for rssuance of writ of Mandamus] e Constitution of Indra direction or any other M/ ;k/’/r ‘ p $1) HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishfa W.P. 1S} No.2958 0f WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICtE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'HON OF INDIA Shri Somkant Verma counset for the petmoner M§ss aangeeta Mshra P L for the State ORAL ORRER (25.06.2010) Heard. (2} The petitioner was engaged as daily wage tabourer vide Annexure PH dated 24—02-2004 in the office of Respondent No 2 i e Nauar Panchayat Parpodt Tahsn Saja D‘stnct Durg By subseqmnt reeolmton dated 0104-2010 the respondent No 2 decided i0 dieengage an deny wager and muster rot! employees wrth an Observation that they shalt be engaged as and when need arises {3) Leamed counsel for the petmoner submits that after the sard resoiution severai other daily wagers have again been allotted works but the netltroner has been left out tt Is prayed In this writ petltion that the respondents be directed to allow the petttioner to work like other employees even after resolution Annexure P/3 dated 07-04~2010 ahd to pay the fixed salary of Rs.‘l800!~ from 07-04-2010 (4) ln the oplmon of this Court the petttioner who was a daily wager \have no nght to post and after her disengagement thrs Court m exercuse of as runsdlctron under Article 226 of the Constrtutlon of indra can not rssue any drrectron to the respondents to engage the petltloner l l l FETmONER , V $mt. Vaidehi Dubey RESPONQENTs‘ of Q ~z’ as it is not kncw as to at what point of time the respundent No. 2 wou‘d need the services o€ any dany wager. {5) The plea regarding reengagement of othet daily wager who were sim‘nal1y placed cannot be entertained becauee it has not been put forth as what kind of work and for which period others have been engaged. ln any case since the petitioner has no right to the post no direction, as prayed for, can be issued, however it is directed that if and when the need arises, the respondent No. 2 may consider the engagement of the petitioner as she had already worked in the Nagar Panchayat. (d) With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed oft Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge