'i:.^. ''fc^il I;1 '^. ?'•• .'^ " r ^\ff^' E BEW^ iips^-." . IN THE HKjIiCQURT OF CHHA'mSGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHI W.P. (S) No. ^<5^/2009 PETITIONER Sharda Singh, S/o. Shri Balram Singh, ^ed about 39 years, R/o. Chfaoteatarmunda, T.y. Tower Road, Raigarh.Distt. Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (t) Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing F'ederation Maryadit, througti its Distt Marketing Offteer, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ^(2) Additional Registrar, Go-pperative Societies,Raipur (£.(?.) ^z <y /. ,^/^~^ t >/uj+'^/ ^<^y .f!^'" (3) Joint Registrar, Co-operatiye Societies, Raipur (C.G.) (4) Sub Registrar, Co-operafcive Societies, RaipurfC.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226/227 THECONSTITHTIQN OiT IN0IA . .; s ";IIT ;ss:s •x^ ^Sl gs Bffia IM B bil HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 6808 of 2009 Petitioner Sharda Singh Versus Respondents Chhat&garh State Co-operative Markcting Federatmn Maiyadit fe others WRIT PETITION UNDER AKTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn J.) Shri S. P. Kate, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDERtOraIt (Passed on ttus 23rd day ofNovember, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, by this petition, sceks to chaBeuge the legalily aud validity offfae impugaed oi?der dated 16.9.2009 (Anaexure P/1), passed by the Additional Registrar, CoopeTative Societies, Chliatdsgarh in Second Appeal No. 77(2)(I)/25/09. Leamed couusel appearing for the petitioner subimts that the petitioner was appointed as Peon on dailyw^es basis agaiast the clear aad vacant post ou 25,9.1995 and he contiuucd to worls tiU his services were terminated on 1.11.2002 by oral order. During fhe service period the provideat fund of the petitioner was also deducted at par with tfae regular einployees. As fhe miatter could not be setfled before the ConciBation OfEieer in concitiation proceeding, imder thc provisions ofthe ludustdal Dispute Act, 1947, the inatterwas referred to fhe Labour Court, Ralpur on 16.3.2004, wherein by order dated 26.6.2006 itwas held by the Laboiu" Ctoiirt, Raipur fhat fhe reference was not inaintainable. Tiliereafler, on 1.11.2002the petitionerfiled an application before the Depyty _ -L ii. 4. ^1 Registrar, Cooperatroe Societies, luider the provisions of Section 55 (2) of the Ctihatdsgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which was aUowed by order dated 7.1.2008 (AimexuTe P/2) aad the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. The appeal filed by fhe respondeut No.l was disinassed by order dated 31.3.2009 (Annexure P/3) p^sed by (he Joait Registrar. By the impugaed order dated 16.9.2009 (Atuiexiire P/l), the second appeal fited by fhe respondent No.l agaiast fhe orders dated 7.1.2008 aad 31.3.2009 has been allowed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies on fhe ground that fhe as fhe petitioner was engaged purely on teinporary basis, on daUy wages, he had no legal r^ht to reinstatement. The petitioner seeks to chaUenge the legali^r aad validity offhe impugaed order with a direction to fhe respondents to reinstate fhe pctitioner in service with aU. conseC[uential benefits. The contention. of learaed counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner is that during fhe sendce period the provident fund of fhe petitioner was also deducted at par wifh tfae regular exuployees, thus, the service of fhe petitioner could not have been termiaated by oral order, wifhout foBowing fhe due procediu-e oflaw. Haviug heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner aad haviag perused the docuinents appended thereto, it is evadent that fhe engageiaeut of the petitioner was purely oa. teinporary basis on daily wages. The petitioner was never appointed in accordance wifh the constitutional scheme of employment Thus, fhe petitfoner has no legal right to reinstatement and regularization ofhis services. Thatan ^^ 3 5. The nature of appoiutnient of the petitioner appeara to be purely as seasonal einployee for 59 days, on daily wages basis. The same was not doae ia aceordaace with nries and as such the petitioner does not acquire any r^ht to the posfc It is weffl setfled principle of law by a catena of decisJDus that fhe einployee appoiated de-Iiors the constitution^l scheaie of eiuployiaent and not in accordaace with law, has no right to continuation, reinstateinent or regularization iu serrice. This is also not fhe case of fhe petitioner that he was legaUy appointed, ia accordauoe with law. It is clearly estabUshcd that the appoiutnient ofthe petitioner was not in accordance wifh law. (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevl (3) aad others1, Offlcial Liquldator Vs. Dayanand and others2 ]. Thus fhe petitioner fa not entMed to any relief, as clauned in fhis petition. • 6. In view of the above, I do not fiad any B nt in this writ petition, which deserves to be aad 1s disrnissed accordiagly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge <•'. 1 - - - - . .-. •2UU6(4)SCU1 2 2008 (10) SCC 1