zé HIGH C€3L§§? GE CHHA‘¥T§$G}AR%§: giLiéxSii‘UR W73: Petitionis‘; Ne. 24-39 of 20% @amiena Ashvané Kumay i3ewangaoa, SIG. Late Shri Lak’nania! Dewgngan, Ex—a‘eeg) Qriver, GEice cf "zhe 8.0.0., Kuwd, rlo. 5an3'ay Nagar Kumd, TahsiE Kurud, Dist Raipur. DG. N5 ve{$us R§5§Jondem$ 3) Sta’ze of Maci%1ya Pradesh through Secretarf Revenue Degartmemi, Va§iabh Bhawan, Bhopai, MP. 2‘, 8303K Deveionmant Gff2cer Vikas Khand Kuwd‘ Téhsi! Kurtm‘, D§si. Ra§pur, CG. 3) Coiiecion Raigur‘ CG. $§: Hon’ma $hri Jusiice Sai§sh *r‘i. Agmimt¥i Preswé; Shri AS. Raggut, comsei fer 'ihe petazioaer. Panei “er respoadems No. 2&3. Ku. Dipaii Pandey, Lawyez' respoadems G “5L GEEDER {Paww {m 2’” May, 23$?) 3y ti’ais ae’tiiiam. ihe peti'iione:‘ seeks quash§ng of Me termina‘iion cider dated 24-19% (Amexwe N9} as iéiegai amci furiher i0 gram remsia'temem with back wages. \ 2) The ind§spumbie facts, in nutshe§%, aE’e that ihe peiiianer was at CoEector‘s raie vide ordez' dated 3-144; §8§ apminteci on ‘rjaHy wage’s 3 (Amexure N1) am conéinaed in ihe same cagaciiy :iH ‘ne was gamed v§de arder da‘ied 23-1 24%?1 Thereafter, by impagned reguiar my SCaie arder dated 2—1-‘ISQ8 (Afmexure AIQ), sen/ices of ihe petiiiona was éiscominued as his appomtmegivwas on daiiy wagwbasis. The Deiitiorxer impugns the order dated 24-19% (Amexure Mg) on ihe ‘ * /;_./# / Ft /7);J~ -L/ gmuna’ ihai he has a‘rzainec’a ‘i’ne siaim of Yegular empio‘y'ee as reguiaf nay scaie was granied to him. ThuS. no terminaiion order can be :aassed Without issuing prcpei' Show cawe noiica. 3) Leamed counsei apgaearing for'fhe petiiioner Submiis éhat the services of the .aet§iioner~, afie! havmm been regmarizeci. canmi: be termma’zed Wiihou‘t Tbiiowing due prowss of §aw aw withomi affewing 5m omefxuniiy (sf aearing ”i0 pui-ibrwarci his case. é) iier conira‘ ieamed counsei apaeazmg for the SiateiyespanciemS submiis ’that the amointmem of the be'iiiicnef was m céaiw waqgs bas§s wi€houi camng appiicaticns from °ihe sim§iar§y siéuaieci candida‘ies and as such the ragulayization thefeaf‘éer 6065 mi ccmfef any rigiwi: 0n the petjiéoner on the gmunci ihai fne initiaé appoinimem itsei?‘ was mt m ’accerdance with ihe cansiiiuzionai scheme of emg‘mymem am furt§’aer noi in accaréance wi?‘n the mies arid reguiations arevakm at thai mag. 5} i have heard ieamaé wunse‘z ameamg f0? the na;‘i§es, werused the recofds and ihe documems appended ieez‘e’ie. (in pemsai of The wee? dated 3-1-1@8§ {Anaexure N3), it is evideni: that ihe apgomimem; 0f ihe peeiiioner on the pas? of Jeeg) D¥iver was on dai§y wages basis axed ‘ihe {Je‘iiiieneiv has noi pointed out any oéhe¥ documemi that ihe aeneimment wae made afce; mnewmg due Dmcess of iaw in accordance with fee consiituiionai snheme of empioymen‘i. ThereafLer, me gram a: g reguSay ’pay-scaEe dues mt comfy am} righi en the petitiorier which he can ciaim ’io the post _ L‘ "‘ Sd/—' ‘; Satish K. Agnihotri Judge J.—.... \