i 8ingie Behah twQ 69%; L, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w. P. (S) No. 53 8H 12006 PETITIONER Ram Khiiawan Rajak S/o Shri Budheram Rajak, Age ahnnt 37. years, R/o Sirgitti,Tarbahar,Near Kumar I ‘ Cycle Stand, Bilaspur‘(C.G.) VERSUS £ RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- Secretary, Department of Water Resources Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, i Raipur (C.G.) t St “ ‘1;‘ QQ@ 2. Engineer-in-Chief,- ,Q’ ’ Department of Water Resources Raipur (C.G.) oupcnmcnumg l:..m;.. :Ilgmecl, A... / Department of Water Resources Hasdeo Kachhar,Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer, Vidyut/Yantriki Light Machinary Nalkup & Gets, Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ()A J‘ amxw.ov - x / t W. P15} No. 5384 of 2006 Ram Khilawan Rajak Versus Pe‘l'i'rioner Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for fhe pe‘fifioner. awi Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for 1he respondems. ORDER (6m October, 2006) lenr-ned counsei for The pe'rii'ioner submifs Tha'r The pefifioner was appointed prior To 31.12.1988 and aT presenT he is working as Labour (ciass~IV employee) in The respondenT/depar'imenT as daily wager. The peTiTioner has filed This pefifion praying for a relief in ferms of The judgmenf and order passed by The Supreme Cour‘i in ‘lhe case of Secrefary. STaTe of Kamai'aka and Ofhers Vs. llmadevi (3) and OThers‘ and Mineral ExpioraTion CorporaTion Employees’ Union v. Mineral Exploration CorporaTion Limi'red & Mir-.2 The Supreme CourT in The case of secretary, SfaTe of KamaToka and OThers (supra), in para 53 has held as under: “53. The quesfion cf regulariza‘fion of 'rhe services of such employees may have 1'0 be considered on meri'fs in fhe Iigh‘r of +he principles seffled by fhis Courf in The cases abovereferred 1'0 and in fhe ligh‘i' of fhis judgment In fha‘l' confexf, fhe Union of India, fhe Siafe Governmenfs and fheir' ins'h'umem'alifies 14 w HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR singie Bench: ‘Han'bie shri swish K. Agnihoiri, J. Respondents : Sfa'l'e of Chha‘i'fisgarh d: Others should fake steps +0 regularize as a one-fime measure, fhe Services of such irregularly appoin'red, who have worked for fen years or more in duiy sancfioned pos‘ts bu‘r nof under cover of orders of the cour'rs or of fribunals and should fur'rher ensure 'Hnaf regular recruifmenfs are under'raken +0 fill fhose vacanf sanctioned posfs 'l'haf require “to be filled up, in cases where femporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process musf be se'l in mo'l'ion wi'lhin six mon‘rhs from 'lhis dafe. We also clarify fhaf regularizafion, if any already made, buf nof sub judice, need no? be reopened based on fhis judgment, bu? fhere should be no furfher bypassing of "the consfi'lu'l'ional requirement and regularising or making permanent Those nof duly appoin'led as per fhe consfifu-rional scheme." 4. The Supreme Cour? in fhe case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union (supra) in para 17 has held as under :- “17. If is seen from The above paragraph fhaf This Courf direcfed 'I'he Union of India, fhe Sfafe Governmenfs and Their insTrumenTaliTies f0 regularize as a one-'l'ime measure, The services of such irregularly appoinTed workman, who have worked for Ten years or more in duly‘sancTioned posTs buT noT under cover of orders of The courTs or of Tribunals and should furTher ensure ThaT regular recruiTmenTs are underTaking To fill Those vacanT sancTioned posTs ThaT require To be filled up, in cases where Temporary employees or daily wagers are being now if employed." 5. Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, having regard To The facTs and circumsTances of The case and wiThouT expressing any opinion on meriTs of The case, The requesT made by learned counsel for The peTiTioner is jusT, fair and reasonable. Therefore, The pefi'ricner is aHowed +0 make u defailed represenmfion, raising a“ his grievances annexing a copy of 1'he wrif pefi'rion and ifs annzxures to The concerned au'ihoriiy wi‘lhin a period of ien days from foday and fhc concerned aufhorify id direc’red 1'0 decide 'rhe represenfa'rion wifhin one monfh from The date of H’s receip'r afier considering the poin'rs raised by fhe pe‘ri'l'ioner, in an objective manner, on its own meri'rs, in accordance wi'H'i law. Wi'rh The direci’ions aforesaid, fhe pe'rifion sfandsdisposed of. No order as 1'0 costs. J \\\ i i sw— ki Satish K. Agnihotri 1 Judge ‘{(zooa) 4 sec 1} 2{.TT 2006 (7) SC 151}