W. P. (S) No. u ?%/2oos PETITIONER i/(Balram Singh Dahria S/o Shri Narayan Singh 1/\ 0% 9,..4/ uVh Dahfia, aged about 25 years, “q; 5 . R/o Rehunta Khurada, Post Pandria .yw Distt. Kawardha (C.G.) VERSUS ‘ State ofc. G. Govt. Through- Secretary, RéVenue Dept. DKS Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) / .\ % / . \ 3‘ Q x Q \3 y 2. Collectore Q W‘b RESPONDENTS f‘ 0 Q Q~«9 ? /V Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) TION § ‘ ‘ $s oé WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLES 226 OF IHE CONSTITU OF INDIA Q73l/ - OF 2008 Bairam Singh Dahria W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTiON !SlNQ.4736 PETITIONER Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri $atish K. Agnihotri, J. - Shri S. P. Kale, counsei forthe petitioner. S Shri A. V. hridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on ths 1 day er November, zoos) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. (2) By this petition. he petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to grant wages for the period from 1042-2006 to 30-09-2007, as the petitioner has worked during the aforestated period as Driver (Skilled labour. ) (3) Contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that he was working as Driver (Skilled labour) from 10-12-206 to 30-09-2007 as is evident from the letter dated 16-08-2007 addressed to the Collector, District Bilaspur written by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota, District Biiaspur, and thereafter again on 30-09-2007 for payment of backwages. (4) ACcording to learned counsel appearing for the State, the petitioner was never given appointment order and he h not put any signature on any attendance register maintained by the respondent No.3. Thus, claim of the petitioner for payment of wages is without any basis. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitoner has worked with the respondent No.3, the same is without any authority because the respondents have not accorded permission for appointment of the petitioner and there was no sanction for the said appointmt by the competent authority. Learned counsel submits that since there was no prior permission and sanction for the appointment, thus, if he has worked in the office of responden No.3, then the respondents are not responsible for the same and the petitioner is not entitled to grant of any relief RESPONDENTS Present: ORAL ORDER i f“ t 5 as i en t m from the réspondents. However, learned couhsel submits that if the petitioner has worked, then the person who has permitted him to work, is responsible for the same. (5) Be that as it may, it is the case of the State that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of Driver (Skilled labour) and he was not putting his signature in the attendance register, and as such, he may not claim any wages. The factum of working of the petitioner is not denied categorically, but it has been stated that if the petitioner has worked, he may be entitled to payment of wages from the person who has permitted him to work. (6) ln view of the above-stated reasons, it is evident that the petitioner has worked as Driver for the period from 10-12-2006 to 30-09-2007.'Thus, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State that the petitioner was working without any appointment order or any sanctioned post deserves to be rejected, as any person, who works without any appointment order or sanctioned post, is also entitled to wages for his work. Accordingly, the Collector, District Bilaspur is directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid his wages from 10-1 2-2006 to 30-09-2007 for his work on the post of Driver, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (7) Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/— " .Satish K. Agnihotri "\ Judge Tumane