< HIGHCOURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV ©UPTA,C.J. & HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUMJW SINHA, J. Writ Aopeal No. 140 of 2007 APPELLANT/ PET1TIONER B.L. Kashyap, aged about 59 years, s/o late Shriram Kashhyap retired from - time keeper, o/o Sub- Division, water resources Dept., Bhopalpattnam Division - Dantewada, Di^rict - [tentewada, R/o Village - Cherpalli, Via - Madderh,''DiStrict - Dantewada (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgaiti, Through the Secretary, Department of water resources, Marrtralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Engineer-in-Chief, Department water resources, Raipur (C.G.) of Executive Engineer, water resources Dept. Dlvision - Dantewada, District - Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) Sub-Divisional Offlcer. water resources Dept, Sub-Dlvision, Bhopalpattanam, Division - Dantewada, District - Dantewada, Chhatti^arh < Writ Appeal UnderSection 2 (11 oftheChhattisaarhHiah Court (Appeal to Division Bencht Aet. 2008 Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani, learned counset for the appellant. Shri N.K, Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. JUDGEMEJMT (27m February,2008) '^T$"y5»w""''" ..r-..^—-VS:-~~ "s. \\. The Tollowing judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, G.J. Heard learned counsel for the Darties on I.A. No.01 (application for condonation of delay in filing the Writ Appeal). 2. On due consideration, we are satisfiKl that the appellant has succeeded in showing the sufRcient cause for the delay in flling the writ appeal. 3. Therefore, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the detay in filing the writ appeat ishereby condoned. 4. Leamed counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5. Appellant - B.L. Kashyap has filed thls writ appeal against the impugned order dated20th March, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 1589/20)5. 6. Appellant - B.L. Kashyap filed the writ petition for the fotlowing reliefs: "7.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for theentire records conceming the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 7.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindty be pleased to issue an appropriate wrtt of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the petitioner on the post of Time Keeper forthwith wfth all consequentlal benefits. 7.3 Any other relief or retfefs that may be though fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted. 7.4 Cost of the petition be also awarded." •w^ v^l '^ ^ ? ^^^C^... ^s -fix3esi'::^"'^j^, <8,^*..v subbu 7. Appellant - petitioner, thus, in substence was seeking a writof mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the appellanVpetitioner on the postof Time Keeper. 8. The appellant/petitioner admittedly was appointed as daily-wager in the year 1979. No wr'rt of mandanius can be issued directing regularization of a daily-wager, in vlew of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary. State o( Karnataka & Ors. V. Umadevi & Ors.. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1991. 9. We, therefore, do not find any Infirmity in the impugned orderwhereby the appellant'swrit petition was dismissed. 10. The Writ Appeal, therefore, is llable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha &' \\0^