mailman gaméh @ @ ’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL 62> OF 2010 /i. Darbar Singh Porte, S/o Shri Bhudharu Singh Pone,‘ Aged about 34 years Occupat1on Workmg as a Peon R/o Kudhurtal Post- Chandh P.S.-Lalpur,Tahsil_-Lormi, ' District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Maheshwar Prasad Ya4av; S/o. Shri Ghasiram Yadav Aged about 40 years, \ Occupation — Working as a Peon, R/o. Matiyari, Post—Janji, Tahsil—Seepat, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)‘ VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Secretary Geral, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) C.G. Administration Academy Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL To DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 APPELLANTS/ P eTI’na N é RS IN THE HON ’ , ne @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$6ARH AT BILASPUR‘ ‘ DIVISION BENCH HON‘BLE SHRI I M QUDDUsI & HON'BLE SHRI R I... JHANWAR J'J WRIT APPEAL NO.68 OF 2010 Appellanfs/ Dar-bar. Singh Por‘l'e & dnofher Pafifianer 51am of Chhnf‘risgarh‘& gnofher- Rasponden‘rs Prasenf Mr ManoJ Jaiswal Advoca‘re for The appellan‘rs Mr Amrrl’o Das Pgnel Lawyer for 'rhe S'l'a're OR‘AL IJUDGME NT? 4 (Passsd on‘1“ April“. 2010) > I.Mv. Quddusi, J;- 1. Heard on I.A. No,1, appliga'rion fgn gondanafio‘npfidaiqy infiljng this wri'r appeal, as The same has been preferred, wi‘rh a‘de‘lay of 50 days. 2.. Having peru§ederhe :reasqnw assigned in ,Athe Mgpp.ljgg.tionwfor condona'rion of delay “inwfHing, *he instant writ appeal, we are,,of The opinion Thai fhe delay’ hasheen safisfac'i'orily explained and accordingly, ihe application is allowed, andwdelay is cond‘o‘nedi 3.Tl1is appeal is direc'l’ed againsf ‘i’he impugned order} da'red 14.12.2009 passed .by , fheq learned Single Judge “inm.W.P. _(s) No.425/09. _4. The wri'r appellan'rs filedp‘rhe wrif pefifion for a direcfionio fhe ' respondent authori'ries foam‘g‘ularize‘fheir, services aslhey were working on contrqc‘tbosiso since 199] withogt‘any,‘ break till 2002 ‘ and Thereafferreappoinied“in“:khetyear 2005; ‘ .7.Wri+ pemion was dismissedhythe“learnedpsmgle.Jusdtgevnrelying - on The various ’ju‘dgmentswo‘fil’hiew‘Hon'blues ‘5up,ram§‘court whereinAif ~ i has been held fha'r the daily wagerrgqnn’oj'claim regularization, confinuance or reinsfa‘lemen‘l' "in 'servige , on} \fh’e basis, of appoinfm‘en'r, which ‘was fempqrarv and not in accordance wirh law x ‘ r4e~xlwwawr ‘ W \ ~4~._7,_h-. ”A ' s and de-hors the cons‘rifufional scheme of,‘z‘mploymiewnt ,Henca fhe instant wrif appeal; 6. In This wrif appeal, fhe Wrif app¢llanf has filed copywof fhe schema of rcgularizafion da'l'ed 5.3.2008 by which _1’he_,d,a.j,ly wagér or ad-hoc employees ‘appoiri‘red up‘l'o, 31.12.19‘88‘ weref to be considered for regularizafion.g 7. The wri'r appellanfs were appqinfed in the year,_19_97loniidailywage > basis bu'r worked only fill 2002 and Thereafter reappointed in fhe year 2005'and iherefore,y‘rhe’ir case is not covered. by ‘l’ha‘r scheme; However, in case, in future 'l'he scheme is gmended or +he case of 1'he wrif appellam's comes within 1'he zone of conside‘ra'rion, the impugnedorder passed by fhe, learned Single , Judge will no‘l' be an impedimen'l' To consider the regulariza‘l’ion of fhe wri‘l’ a pellan'l’s. 8. w fhe‘hforesaid observa‘rions, we uphold --rhe impugned'order daled 14.12.2009 passed by 'l'he learned ,Single Judge and ' disposed of fhe wrif appeal. No order as fo costs. l Sd/— l IM.Quddusia” ; Judge @ \ Tl}