«am» :N THE M .p BEVCH AT -- RMPUR (4)?)/Sj%%77{uj" BETWEEN £PmJCANTS ‘ . 1. WA AGE — MAM 37 BANJARE, YEfWxS mN 0? SHRI BHU‘M‘N LAL 'rAHsxL & MST 2‘. GAIND mm BAGHEL, AGE - 39: YEARS saw OF mu HRaNm RAM, R/cr w.a.:s. cowm ,RAIPUR IAH. & B151“. — RAIPUB W Am W Mm SON RAMU - OF LAL 37 sHRI YEARS DHRUWA, Rmmam MO VILL .— BHMGOAN, Hown (ABHMPUR) P-On "' K H ‘TAH. & DIST; — RAI?UR. 4; SHYAM LAL CHHURg, AGE .. 36 YEARS SON OF SHM KURso mm g/o Nam RAM Mmnm, ‘ SHANTx N‘AGAR, RMPUH (Nb? .) HRmAY LN ”immN, AGE .. 28 YEARS, sON OF wRI $ARJU Rm 3/0 VILL. — SANKRMBHDTHALI) P.5. — ABJum, wax—x. & 13min —- DHMWMRI. 6. JEEARWN DHRUWA, AGE .. 32 Yams, $0N OF 3%1 KHEDU RAM. 3/0 .VXLL. a JAROUB (Rwy-x) p s — MMQm HAsOUD Tm... &. MST. , Emma ma LOBHA Rmm Bum, @GE .. 37 Yams, mN 01: SHRI SHATBUHAN 3x401, H/O VILL . — . BHMWARPUR , 13.5. g, TAH. — BASNA, Dmmim — MAHASmUNm my .¢.2»...-. 3. 5. V§Ww5$f§1 7. @ .002... RE$FQVEHWIS : 1o STATE OF MNJHYA PRADESH THROUGH - THE SECRETuARY MINISTRY OF REVEVUVF. DEPT. VALLABH BHI‘WM , BHOPAL . 2 . THE COMMISSIONER , LAND RECORD & $ETTLWEN‘T GWALmn, Imp. DmTRIC‘r — GWALIOR. 3. THE COLLECTOR, Lmn REcoRn, DISTRICT - RIQIPUR M.D. DETAILS OF WIDLICATION 1. PARTICULARS O? THE APPLICANTQ . as above in cause title? .PamiICULAFw OF THE RESPONDENTS' .as above 1n cause ti tle. 3. PIIRTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINm‘ WHICH APPLICATION ‘F': BEING MA DE : @ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aglihotri, J. .. w. p. (s) No. 3177 or 2005 Shri R. K. Keshexwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay DWivedi, Panal lawyer for the mspondenis. ORDER (28m August, zoos) 1. The, pgti1joners were appointed on the post of Chainman as contingency paid employees vide orders dated 9.6.1993, 30.6.1993 and 31.12.1993 (Annexure A] 1, A/Q and. A/3). It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitionem that the State Government by circular dated 27.7.1996 (Annexure A/4) observed that it had come to the notice of the State Government that some of the candidates, including the petitioners were appointed on daily wages basis, not against regular vacancies, when there were clear regular vacancies available. It is fuxther submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide circular dated 21.1.1999 it was directed to scrutinize the cases of the petitioners for appointment against regular 3 available vacancies. ' 2. The petitioners have filed this petition praying that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners on regular cadre with consequential benefits, of arrears ofwages. mm“, Petitionfxrs : Sada Ram Banjam and others Versus Respondent : State of Madhya Pradesh (nnw Chhattisgarh) and others 3, 3 that as it may, no right has accrued, in favour of the petitioners as their appointments wore not in accoldancc with the law and. as per the constitutional schema 4. The Suprame Court in the case of Smetary, 3tate of Katnataka as others Vs. Umadevi (3) and other-S1, in paw 53 has held as under:— “53. .............. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the (warts or of tribunals and shouldfurther ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be fitted up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed The process must be set in motion within, six nwnths from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment) but there shouid be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularsing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as __ 7 per the oonstitutional scheme. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees’ Union v. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited & ‘Anr., in. pate 17 has held as under:- “1 7.‘It is seenfrom the above paragraph that this Court directed the Union of .)Iridia, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed workmen, who harre worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts. or of tribunals and should hrrther ensure that regularrreauitments are undertaking to hll those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed " é? 6. In View of the dicta. laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgments and oniers, tha petition is disposed of finally, granting liberty to the patitioners to make mpresentation to the concerned authority, if any, for considering their cases in accmdanca with the decisions of the Supreme Court, stated above and the respondents are dimcted to consider the cases of the petitioners as per dimction of the Supreme Court, as stated above, as one time measure, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Thakur {(20061 4 sec 1y {Jr 2006 m so 15w