f. asingi®8er?el c BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ! CHHATTISGASH) WRIT PETmON (SANO, Z2011 PETITIONER ^^& vw.. - y ^' 1^'~ '-"" ' ' f'' <*• ,»<:•' ^',. 1. Rohit Kumar aged 30 years S/o Hiraman Lal Occupation: Tractor Driver, ( At Nager Fanchayat Gunderdehi) R/o, Sanjay chowk Gurughasidas ward no. 58,GunderdehiDistrictDurg (C.G) ,(• 2. Kamlesh Nishad aged 31 years S/o Raincharan Nishad Occupation : water supply ( At Nager Panchayat Gunderdehi) R/o Ward No. 12, School Para, Gunderdehi District Durg (C.G) 3. Ishwari Nishad aged 29 years S/o Govind ram Nishad Occupation: Electrician ( At Nager Panchayat Gunderdehi) R/ o Ward No.2 Gunderdehi District Durg (C.G) RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Thirough : The principle Secratory, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralay at D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) The Undei Secretary Department of Urban Admirdstration and Development, Mantralay at D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur,(C.G) Nager Panchayat Gunderdehi Through: Chief Munidpal Officei, Gunderdehi District Durg (C.G) The President Nager Panchayat Gunderdehi DistrictDurg(C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 01. Particulars^aboyt the petitioner: :,A "-'Si iH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR WR!T PETiTION (S) N0. 2251 OF 2011 PET!T!ONERS o p RpnN n= NTK i i. s»-Tr? r~ \^s ^ ^i— r^ i ^j.i RQhit Kumar & Otrters Versus 04--—.4'A"i* ?n-);-l^'.'~-^iff^^'-l>"!/"i 3 F'"^*^-!.^;': ^^\rf ^^'i ^ »r : i^ t^rf'.'ii^^^^'~'i-^ i^S :' i -^-^ '-^-^ £. 1 i Sw- (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Const'tutio" of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Sh'l Satish K. AQnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anurag Jha, Advocate for the petltioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORDER(ORAL) /Q-..-.^^.^ A^ •i-^s^ f^QHa ^^K -.-?' 3i:.^-^i.* /^n^ ^ \ ^rcisasu un ini^ u^: usay ui ivicay, ^ui i Learned counsei appearina for the petitloner submlts that admittedly the petitioner was engaged as daliy wager and had worked for more than 10 years. Thus, in the light of order dated 23.09.2010, the petitioner ought not te have been removed wlthout ^if'T'i itiHi^'lHi^ ?a?^tfb wh^th^r th?^ ^Hnr^intm^ni' nf th?£ n^-tltion^r w??^ •I UtH it.&ii i^ S0''i->w Wi ;!S? ;,; i :S;i L.I iS; ilys^'sJViis>.iisi.'V''lt. Ui 'i.i i'C? s^V^l-.'.Vt l^Sl ''f'isB.-Q iU^^-si s~*"' iryss:n u I ,sr '"' 'P^MSii ^^ UiS^UUSCSi. '-f' •~if Thls is the weii sett'ed princip'e of 'aw that if any appointment is made without foiiowina ?he due orocess of iaw. bv not InyitlnG ?snnHr;?sti^nc^ fmn^ ?311 fh^ ^linihip c^nd>dRT^?s th^5 ^^id ?5i^ODintn'i^Ht Si^l^]':iaf'i5.'.i-»{'e3 JS =,«/E s E VSil U i'VS ??': \^ (a^11 •C7 iw'd'iJU .:U S'.i'S-'s-i ; i>:i •i'S? -iSGiiU S.<g»>°^>'^-ss; i..i l i^i i - is 'iiegal and de hors the constitutionai scheme of empioyment. in a catena of decisions, the Suoreme Court has consiasred the issue and held that the appointments made de hors the constitutionai scheme of emptoyment is iiiegal. ln para 53 of the judament rendered bv the SuDreme Court in Umadsvs (3) fsuprai. it .^» is cleariv atated that the Union of tndia, the State Governments and their instrumentailties shou'd take steos to reauiarize as a one-time measure, the services of such SrregularSy appointed, who have ^tT-< worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts. in that event, only *"° irregu!ar!y appointed persons, who have worked aaamst the sanctioned posts, may be considered for regulsrization, not the JISsgally appointed employees. (Aiso see: Indian Drugs & Pharmsceuticsss Ltd. v. Workmen, Sndian Drugs & PnarmaceuticaSs Ltd.1 and Offida! Liquldator v. Daysnarid and Others;. ApDivina the weii settied orincis!es of iaw to the facts ofthe oresent case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition, beina devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. isno:. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge