'ry'^i ?^^s^iJSi-JS^^Wt-^M?B''".i.;^k^"i^-._.'' !;!®'a I.;^/'.>: \. U/& HISH COURT OF CWriATTLSGARH AT BILASPUR W-". 227 ,Mp. 3613 uf 200S PstiTiQ.ie'' Radhsy Shydm Sinqh, so" of 5hrl Dui-shuti 5ir'igh T?i<ikur, aaeci 40 yeoi-s, House No. 39/674 Near Baram Babs Mi'ndir, Thakur Bada, Lili Chowk, Puc-ani Basti, Raipur (C.6.) vsrsus ResDondent EiiStrict Head ^Resham) H.I.6. 3 SscTor 2, Shaikar Nagsr, Raipur (C.6.) PEHTOIN UN&ER ARTECE 227 Oc mE CQNSTTTUTION SingSe Bench ; Hon'bie Mr- Sotish K. <4gnihot*Bi, J. •Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, AdyocaTe- for the pe-tjtioner. ORAL ORDER (Passea on •"tis ilth acr/ sf Juiy, 2008) The petitioner impugns ti-ie opder dated 2.11.2007, passed by the Laboui' Cour-t. Raiuur in Case No- 75/20001.iS. Act/Reference- L£Qi~r!££icoui?i^sl oppeoring for 'iiig petitiorisr subniits +hot the petitioner waa uppointed os C$riv-er m the cieportment of r&ssuFiderit on 7.7-19S9- H£ woa tsrnii^iistsd fru?» ^ervic£ o" 27 27.1.2000 mithout giving a no-i-ice, which is contrar/ to -rtie princinies of naturui justice- The pictitionei' has dischargeci 240 elff/s coritinuous service in every- year since the date of his iippointment. The petitioner hss served for- more than 11 years, thereby h^ has become a qussi-permurieiil' eniployee. His services couid h&t^have bean +erminuted iwithout hoiding u ciepartniental eriquiry. T1->e nuiriber 6fl^^ic!e WuS not r^uced m -rtie denari'n'ient esnd the 5£i"tvicesof the petitioFi^i" wos r£t^Uii~^d. .€S^ Ol *: ['a IK- A E"gf^renc£ was Hsude by 'H'ie t^Kpijty LeihuUp CoHiiTi is^iorisr i"hhu1-S-iSyarh, Ruipur, which u>as r-egister^c! os Case No. 75/2000 I.b.Act/Reference. The Lubour Court vide imnugned order duted 2.11.2007 he!d that the terniinQtion of the petitioner fr'um service y-v' ih£)<£SDui'i<j£ri)iwO^I iffuQi GTt^i DF*OD£r. T huve hst'ird Igumed couriSfit uppsurin^ 'for1 't4^e p£titiGngr GFisi pw.^isSK.d the dOCUi'HSnt^ t3pp£Fid£d^ti£i'i<£to. It is a ES uppGr£ntthu't' th^ pstitiori^r' wos sngGg&d iri ssr-vice on daiiy wsges on 7-7.1989- Tn accordarice imit'ri tiie directiori contained in the circu!ar duted 20.10.1999, i+se petitioner iwas terminated fi-om service w.e.f. 27.1.2000, as he was engaged on duily wages prior to the year- 1988. Tn !ieu of disengaaement fFom ^ryice, the petitioner was uiven one months sa!ury of Rs. 2201/- and retrenchment comoenfiation of Rs. 2105S/-. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour-i-, in o catena of decisions, has £^it£yoriCQ*tyhsld tt'iiSi f^5puinAr?t£r!'l' Gi^ dsity wuoes^ con'tns^t Qnd temporary, if not in accordunce with taw and dehors the consti'f-utional scheme of employment, is not a proper" or Isgal GppOiHtrTignt. T1*i& peti+iOner hSS Ffut uCi^ijir'sd Qny rsght to 'H'ie po^t 03 his uppoir)tETi£Ht iniuS QH duil'y WugfiS, FiOt in i3CCGrduHC£ With th^ 7. constilzitional scheme of appoJFitment. It is we!!-niuh established thut this Court in esi'ercjse of its suriervisorv iurisdiction under ^rti'cie 227 of the Consti-hjl-ion of Tndio shouid refruin itseif from interferinu with •!+ie ordei- uassed •Be":Sg>, -^' .^•' /Eo vss ^j^/r^ '.-^' IWK l:i*:;w^' !'.i\J :•'""&. 8- by ths COiJpt belOiw', £3<C£pt in ^jch cfsses whers psr'y^rsily, illegulity, irr-eguiar'ity or jurisdictional eri-or is writ I'arge on thg 'uCig Gt th£F'eCGPd^ WhiCh )3 Ftut ^n th£prfiSSHt CeSS^. Tn v'i£w 5'f th^ fore^uiHy, ^s.r-s. \s no rH£t<it in thi^ p£titi£jHuFtd th^ •w 5utTiiE iS CiiSi?<^5£0. SLirfi??iLiitHV. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ ^^'^' ^ '°^ '^:s^