^•'\.,1^ rf.\;-' ^f ^••^p" (!-,;;; ^^^^^ t. ^ ^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR (C.G.) W. P. (S) No. J?3/'z~/2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ Budhawara Bai W/o Shri Khedurain R/o Chhoti Kom, Bilaspur, Dist. Bflaspur (C.G.) VERSUS / 1. State of Chhattisgarh. Through :- Secretary, Department of Public Works, Dau Kalyaa Siagh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) < 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works, Department Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Supermtending Engineer, Public Works, Department Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bflaspur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer, PubUc Works, Deparhnent Division No.l Bilaspur, Distt. Baaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ART1CLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQNQFINDIA ^ /^'^ .°^J ^'^ ^y X5j HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTtSSARH: B1LASPW Single Bench: Hon'bls Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W. P. (5) No. 5512 of 2006 Petitionsr : Budhawara Bai Versus Respondents : 5'tate of Chhatt'isgarh & Others Shri 5.P. Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. tth (10" October, 2006) Learned counse! for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed prior to 31.12.1988 ond at present she is working as Labour (c!ass-IV employee) in the respondents-department ae daily wager. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief in terms of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of srs Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others and Mineral Explorction Corporation Employees' Union v. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited & Aw. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary. State of Kamatcka and Others (supro), in para 53 has hetd as under; 53. ...........Ths question of regutarization of the services of such eniptoyees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the princip!es settled by this Court in •ttie cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State fiovernments and their instrumentalities /^^ iy should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly oppointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the cour-ts or of tribunals und shoutd further enajre that regular recruitments are undertaten to fill tho% vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that re9utarization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of •t+ie constitutional requirement uid regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." Ths Supreme Court in the case of Minerel Exploration Corporation Employees' Union (supra) in para 17 has hetd as under :- "17. It is seen from the above parograph that this Court directed the Union of India, the State Sovernments and their mstrumentalities to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such ir-regularty appointed workmon, who hws worked for ten years or more in duty snnctioned posts but not uhder cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitnients are undertaking to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now ernployed." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having re9ard to the facts eind circumstances of the case cmd without expressing any opjnion on merits of the case, the request made by learned counset for the petitioner is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the y33 petitioner is allowed to make a detailed representation, rcising al! her grievances annexing a copy of the writ petition ond its annexures to the concerned authority within a period of ten days from today and the concerned cuthorit^ is directed to decide the representation within one month from the date of its receipt after considering the points raised by the petitioner, in an obj'ective manner, on its own merits, in accordcnce with law. 6. With the directions aforesaid, the petition stands di^iosed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotn Judge Bablu '{(2006) 4 SCC 1} 2{JT 2006(7)5c 151} ~ <• »,