é (if/op IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ashwani Kumar Sahu S/o Shn’ Rangalal Sahu / R/o Vill. Salka, Post Nawagaon, Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh a Through :— Secretary, Department of Water Resources Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C,G.) Engineer-in—Chief, I Department of Water Resources Raipm (CG) Superintending Engineer, Department of Water Resources Hasdeo Kachhar,Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Vidyut/Yantriki Light Machinary Nalkup & Gets, Division Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ W.P. s No. 573‘73/2006 1. " IGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble 5hri Safish K. Agnihofri, J. W. P.($) No 5393 of 2006 Pefifioner : Ashwani Kumur Sahu Versus Responden-rs : Sta-re of Chhaffisgarh & Others 5hri 5.P. Kale, counsel for fhe pe'rifioner. 5hri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for The respondenfs. ORDER (6* amber, 2006) 1. Imrned counsel for- fhe petitioner- submi-l's fhaf fhe pefifioner was appoiMed prior ‘ro 31.12.1988 and of presenf he is working as Labour (class-IV employee) in fheresporidenf/‘depormenlf as daily wager. 2. The pe'ri‘rioner has fiied 'rhis peTi'rion praying for a relief in ferms of fhe judgmenf and order passed b’y fhe Supreme Cour'f in The case of 1 Secretary. $1’a1'e of Kornafaka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) ana Ofhers‘ and Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union v. Minerol Explore-non Corporation Limi1'ed & Anr.z 3‘ The supreme Cour? in +he case of Secretary, S‘rote of Kornofako and Others (31pm), in para 53 has heid as under: I “53. The question of regularizafion of +he services of such employees may have 1'0 be considered on merifs in fhe ligh+ of fhe principles se‘Hled by 'l'his Courf in fhe cases abovereferred To and in fhe ligh'l' of 'rhis judgment In 1'ha1' confexf, fhe Union of India, fhe State Governments and their instrumentalities should fake s1'eps 1'0 regular-in as a one-'l'ime measure, fhe services of such irre9ularly appointed, who have worked for +en years or more in duly sanctioned posfs bu? no’r under cover of orders of the courfs or of 'rribunuis and shouid fur-rher ensure Thai" regular recruifmenfs are undertaken 1’0 fill fhose vacan‘i' sanctioned posts that require to be fiiied up, in cases where n £1 temporary empioyees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months 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 should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 4. The 5upreme Court in the case of Mineral Expioro‘tion Corporation Employees' Union (wpra) in para 17 has held as under- :- “17. It is seen from the‘abov‘e paragraph that this Court directed the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed workman, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaking to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed.“ 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the pe‘l'i'l'ioner is allowed 'l’o make a defuiled represen‘l’afion‘ raising a" his grievances annexing a copy of The wr-if pe‘rifion and H's nnnexures 1'0 The concerned aufhorify wi'fhin a period of 'ren days from 'l’oday and fhe concerned au'rhoriTy id direcfed 'l’o decide 1‘he represenfa‘rion wifhin one mon'rh from 'rhe da1'e of ifs receip‘l' offer considering The poinfs raised by fhe pefi‘fioner, in an objec‘l'ive manner‘ on ifs own meri'l'sl in accordance wi-I'h law. Wi‘rh fhe direcfions aforesaid, fhe pe‘iifion sfands disposed of. No i _ \‘ order as to cosfs. #4 ‘ i i Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 {(2006) 4 scc 1} 2{JT 2006 (7) 5C 151} Bablu