IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W. P. No. 3784 of 1999 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent No.1. Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on this 20th Day of March, 2009) f . The petitioners, who were working, as daily wages employees in Municipal Council, Raigarh, have filed this petition challenging the order dated 6.7.1999 (Annexure P/8), in compliance of whiclf they were disengaged from the job w.e.f. 31.7. 1999. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working in the Municipal Council, Raigarh since September, 1988 as daily wages employees. The State Government issued .the memo dt. 28.6.1995 (Annexure P/3) and the memo 20.6.1996 (Annexure P/4) to regularize the services of the daily wages employees who were appointed prior to 31.12.1988 but the respondent No.2 has not acted upon in accordance with the instructions of the State \\\Government. The petitioners were working on the sanctioned \\. Petitioners 1. Bhagwan Singh, S/o Deafam Singh Rajput. 2. Sudarshan, S/o Bhagwan Singh, aged about 3O yrs. Both R/ o Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh. 3. Narsingh Mali, S/o Murlidhar Mali, agd about 30 yrs, Madhuban Modipara, Raigarh. 4. Mahesh Kumar S/o Madhu Sudan Tanti, about 40 Rly Colony, In front of aged yrs, Railway Marg, Raigarh. Versus 7 Respondents 1. State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh), through the Secretary, Local Self Govt. M:P: Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Raigarh. posts and they were not surplus employees. Thereafter, the State Government issued a circular dated 6.7,1999 (Annexure P/8), wherein it was provided that in local self government institutions, Wherever employees were engaged on daily wages beyond the sanctioned posts, they would be removed till 31.7.1999. Though the petitioners were not working as surplus on the posts which were beyond the sanctioned posts, even then they were removed from services without affording an opportunity of hearing. Per contra, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer would submit that the nature of appointment of the’p‘e‘titioners was not in accordance with rules and as such the petitioners {a do not acquire any right to the post. It is well settled principle of law that the employee appointed de—hors the constitutional scheme of employment and not in accordance with law, has no right to continuation, reinstatement or regularization in service. This is also not the case of the petitioners that they were legally appointed, in accordance with law. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto it is apparent that the initial appointments of the petitioners were not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The applications were not invited from the similarly situated eligible candidates for appointment and as such it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and othersl observed as unael‘: “45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain not at arm’s length since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that \ 12006 (4) scc 1 ~2/ ground alone, 1t would not be approprlate to Jettlson tha const1tut10na1 scheme of appomtment and to take $33 the v1ew that a person Who has temporarlly or casually got employed should be dlrected to be contmued permanently By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment Which is nOt permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled t0 accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established for making regular appomtments to avallable posts 1n the serv1ces of the State The argument that Slnce one has been working for some time 1n the post 1t Will not be Just to discontinue hlm, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the Jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have t0 fall when tested on the touchstone of constitutlonality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.” If the appointments of the petitioners itself were illegal, there was niot occasion for reinstatement or regularization. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have not been paid wages for the work done by hem. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that if the payment for the work done by the petitioners is not paid, the same shall be paid within a period of three weeks. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the petition is dismissed. However, in the facts of the case it is directed that ; t gar if the petitioners have not been paid wages for the work done by them, that shall be ascertained and be paid to the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order asto costs Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoui i Judge Thakur i rxmmiwgi .