HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR —Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan ghrivastava, J. Writ Petition is} No.2698l2005 PETITIONER: Pramod Kumar Chhatri Versus RESPONDENTS: State of M. P. and others FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER / Sd/r aStava ‘ J Manindra Muhdn Shriv udge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (SI No.2698l2005 Pramod Kumar Chhatri Versus State of M. P. and others PETITIONER: RESPONDENTs: Shri Ajay Dwivedi; Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. 3 ORDER (Passed on i’iApriI, 2010) This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing iegality and validity of order dated 30034998 (Annexure A-9), 19-04-1998 (Annexure A-10), 14-07-1 998 (AnnexL're‘ A—13), 27-07-1 998 and 02-09-1 998. (2) , Petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 03-01-1992 (Annexure A-4) on the post of Chowkidar for a period of 89 days on Collector rate payment. lt has W been stated that pursuant to government's order dated 10-12-1992 (Annexure A-8), regular pay scale was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11-01-1996 (Annexure A-12). On complaint being made, it was found that the petitioner was not entitled to regular pay scale/regularization and his appointment was directed to be cancelled. in pursuance thereof, vide order dated 19-04-1998 (Annexure A-10). order of regularization was cancelled and recovery was ordered. On appeal being preferred ‘by the petitioner before the Commissioner, vide order dated 22-08—1998 (Annexure A- 11), the said appeal was also dismissed. (3) The aforesaid order of withdrawal of regular pay scale/regularization has been challenged on the submission that as there was a permanent post, petitioner ought ,r-reii i \ l i ' ‘ " Presentshri Rakesh Anthony, counsel for the petitione'? (3) V The aforesaid order of withdrawal of regulati‘pay sfcalelreguhrization has been challenged on the submissmn that as there was a perrhanent post petitioner ought ’ v not to be appomted on daily wage basns for 89 days nor should have been treated as g; f ’ ‘darly wagejemployee The petrtroner should have been grven the similar treatment as was grven to other similarly srtuated persons namely Shyam Dulan Dagor Ramayan - - Prasad Kewat Petrtroner was entitled to grant of regular pay scale upon completion of i‘three years on oolleGtor rate, pursuant to government crrcular dated 10-05-198 _ Petrtuoners servrces ought to have been regulanzed by treatrng hrs Inrtral apporntm n ‘ circular dated 10-1 2-1992 whrch related to regularization of darly wage employees. lt I ' _ as also been submrtted that the order of de-regulanzatron on complaint was passed I “ 4 ‘ as full trme and permanent Chowkldar and hrs case was not governed by governmen wrthout grvrng opportunrty of heanng lt rs also argued that no recovery oould be made frem the petrtroner ln support of hrs contentron. learned counsel appearrng for the petrtroner has relred upon decrsron of this Court rn the case of Bhagwat Prsad Yadav vs. State of chhattrsgarh and others, 2006 (1) c G L J 472 and Mudrrka Prasad ; ,Mishra vs. State of Chhatusgarh and others decrded by thrs Court on 21 ‘09- zoos in w.r=.(s.)No.1srz orzoo1. 7(4) Per‘contra rt has been submrtted by the respondents that petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basrs as a daily wage employee on collector rate.as f é enquiry the petrtroner was not found entrtled to regular pay scale, his: regularrzatronlgrant of regular pay scale was wrthdrawn It has also been submitted‘l“ such hrs servrces were liable to be termrnated wtthout any prror notice As, upon I hat the petrtroner has failed to establish from the pleadings that he was rmtrally ’ appointed on a regular vacant post by any regular process of recruitment. It rs submitted that it was a back-door entry without followrng due procedure for regular appointment as per statutory .recrurtment rules and wrthout followrng constitutronal w .w - t t v h E -‘ procedure, appointment was made, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. (5) From the pleadings of the parties and material available on record, it is clear that petitioner was not appointed on a regular vacant post nor his initial appointment was made by following prescribed recruitment rules or by foliowing constitutional procedure. Appointment of the petitioner was clearly a back-door entry, as the petitioner has failed to establish that his appointment was made on a regular vacant post by following due procedure for regular appointment in accordance with the constitutional procedure. (6) In view of the settled Iaw of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State 7, of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3). and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241 and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others, (2008) 10 SCC 1, petitioner is not entitled for regularization nor a direction can be issued bythis Court. in view of the settled legal position. a daily wage employee cannot claim regularization unless his appointment was made by following constitutional procedure or by following statutory recruitment rules governing regular appointment. Reliance ‘ was placed in the case of Bhagwat Prasad Yadav and Mudrika Prasad Mishra (supra) is of no avail, in view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, which is iaw binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of lndia. (7) Consequently, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd/r Mallindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge I» ’ \ ‘