.-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'bleShri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. WritADpealNo.242/2011 y Aapellant/ Petitioner Rsspondents Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav, S/o. Shri Ramratan Yadav, Aged about 33 years, Resident of Bhaiya Than, Tahsii Surajpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, fvlinistry of Agricultural Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Director, Agricultura! Department, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Agricultural Department, Surajpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. Senior Agricultura! Development Orficer, Baikmthpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ajit Singh, Panei La'wyer for ihe Stafe/respondents on advance copy. "~-ff- O R A L O RD E R (30.06.2011.) Heard on admission. L The appellant was appointed as daliy wages employee on 05.7.1996. According to the appellant, he was cQntinuQusly working as daily wages employee, however, on 01.11 .1999 his services were terminated saying that he cannot be continued in service for want of fund with the concerned authority. The appel!ant cha!!enged the said order dated 01.11.99 before K the writ Court and prayed for direction to the respondents to reinstate him with back wages. The appellant contended that before passing the impugned order, proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the appellant. 3. The writ Court referring to the judgment rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Qthers Vs. Umadevi (31 and others, (20061 4 SCC 1 and many other cases held that temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in sen/ice on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. 4. Shri Ashok Shukla, 'earned counse! appearing on behalf of the appeHant raised almost similar points before us. 5. Perusal of impugned order dated 01.11.99 (Annexure-P/1 in the writ petition) wou!d show that it was simple termination order on account of non- aiiQtment and nQn-availability of funds with the CQncerned authority without making any stigma o" the appe'lant. 6. On due CQnsidertation of the submissions made by learned cQunse! for ths osrtiss snd ths mstsrls! avsHsbis on rscord, ws do rsot find infirmity in the impugned ordsr passed by the writ Court, by which the writ C-ourt dld not interfers with the order dated 01.11.1999. The writ appea!, thsf8for6. Is itsbls to bs disniisssc! and Is hsrsbv disnilsssd. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge <-{ Bini Sd/- R.S. SHARMA. Judge