^> IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL N0. IM I OF 2010 (D.B.) Bs APPELLANTS APPELLANTS .^A .^ .^^v ^fc^oy ^yNVV /'^•^y' ;s?"" -<h.A/ ^•?13y' •^/ RESPONDENTS Respondents in Writ Court l.~ Sada Singh S/o Shivram, aged about 50 years, Pump Operator, under Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, District South Bastar y Dantewada (C.G.). 2. Krishna Singh S/o Tulsiram, aged about 45 years, Peon, in the office of Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). VERSUS 1.' The State of Chhattisgarh: Through the Secretary/Director, Department of Planning and Urban Development D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Collector, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). Nagar Panchayat Dantewada (C.G.), through its Chief Municipal Officer. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 ^ Being aggrieved by the oral order dated 24.02.2010, passed by Shri S. K. Agnihotri, Learned Single Bench, High Court of Chhattisgarh, inW.P. (S).NO. 785/2Q10 in the matter of Sada / 2. 3. HIGH COURT OF CHMATTlSGARH AT BiLASPUR DiVISiON BfcNCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDUSL& HON'BLE SHR! PRASHANT KUMAR MiSHRA. -'J APPEAL N0.141/2010 APPELLANTS (AppeSlants) Vs Sada Sjngh & another The State of C.G. & others Resoondents i.n Writ ^ I^'-^K ^^••^-•SSS^^ Mr. Maiay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Arvind Dubey, P.L. for the State. ORAL JUDGSWENT (passed on 7th Mav. 2010i Meard on admission. 2. This writ appeai is directedagainst ihe impugned order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the iearned Singie Judge in W.P. (S) No.785/10 dismissing the wrlt petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1985 the writ appellants were appointed as Pump Operator & Peon respectiveiy on daily wage basis under the contingency fund in the erstwhile pecia! Area Development Authority, Bailadila, Headquarter at Dantewada, Later on, Speclai Area DeveiopmenS Authority, Balladiia was mergeo' in Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada in the year 1995 and thus the services of the writ appeilants 'continued there since the year 1995 on daily wage basis under the contingency fund. Pursuant to the circular dated 5.3.2008 Issued by the State Government the appellants moved applications for regularization of their services on the avaiiable Class-IV posts but no declsion was taken tili filing of the writ petition and hence they fiied the writ petition for a direction for consideration of their case for regulanzation. 4.. Learned Single Judge dismissed the wrlt petition on the ground that an employment j.e. daily wager, temporary, ad hoc etc. made de hors the constitutional scheme of employment and statutory rules and regulation is iilegal, null and void. This observation of tize iearned Singie Judge is based on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendsred in the matters of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & others reDorted in (2006)4 \c\ ar, SCC 1 and Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & others reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1. 5. Since this Court had not to consider the vaiidity of the engagement order of the writ appellants on daily wage basis from contingsncy fund, who were appointed 25 years ago, we are of the opinion that in case the State Government has made some poiicy for regularization and the writ appeiiants had moved the appiications for reguiarization, it is the discretion of the employer to reguiarize them or not in case the poiicy of the State Government issued vide Circular dated 5.3.2008 is appiicable to the empioyees working on daiiy wage basis in Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada. 6. Therefore, we dispose of this writ appeai with the observation that the observations made by the iearned Singie Judge in the order dated 24.2.2010 passed in W.P. (s) No.785/2010 wili not be an impedlment to consider the applications of the writ appeilants for reguiarization of their services under the rules or circular issued in that regard and the impugned order of the learned Singie Judge stands modified to the above extent. 7. !t shal! aiso be open ror the writ appellants to move a fresh appiication for their reguiarization. 8. The writ appea! is aliowed to the above extent. No order as to COSI&— " •. ____-——— \' Sdll- S<U- . \ \ prashantKumarMishra ^Quddusl } : ~ J"dSe l""3udge _ ,-•..»»!»&