LE BEttTO i' ,\OTi! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) Writ Petition N8?5^'2006 PETITIONER ^a/ 1) 2) ~:!~!W!VKfKj -, /, ^•v.''"ie7'{}^a^' ;:'/i / Hira Singh Rawat ,/ S/o SriAmru By Caste Rawat, ^..-•" ..••' .••' Aged about 49 years, R/o Village- Sidagidi y\J?'' .-••'' Jamali, Post- Pacheda, Tah 8s Distt- Mahasamund(C. G.) Ex. Dailywage employee PWD Department, Mahasamund (C.G.) 3) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Work Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) State of Madhya Pradesh Through The Chief Secretary, Vallabh Bawan, Bhopla (M.P.) The Executive Engineer PuBlic Work Department, Division Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer, Public Work Department, Mahasamund (C.G.) Hanuman Netam S/o Sri Balmat Netam, C/o Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Department Bhawan SE Sadak, Sub Division Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4) 5) XI-HC-78 3ii^T?5rR-ii* !raT3<l^<lsti*<ro 35? •<11<<1<'1^, »Tntl'IS,IqclKiy <4iMdi anri^ •tvj1'1''^"•/^°^•'"•^ 200 Sii^ifi <4a«n(ljyit3<!iyT) ^^ s^iTWflfeTsn^r 13.S.2006:- Shri S.K. Dadsena,couns^ Heard. By the present petition un| India the petitioner has made petitioner is entitled for reinstatenj The case of the petitioner the year 1998 by the Publ Respondent No.5 also joined ^ Department after the petitioner. respondent No.5 were terminatec] 2000. However, respondents N^ whereas, the petitioner has not representation to the Public Wor has been done. Learned counsel for the p< has been mentioned in the petitic^ Perusal of the order was issued to the petitioner sh(^ were appointed for specific worl^ wagers were appointed was coit^ it was decided that the services d after 31-12-88 would be termin^ indicating that the petitioner was been placed on record. The p| work and that work was over, such the petition ofthe petitioner] as »iilci'11-f•<ii<iTfftetit'<Ri«i< ^ari^iTsn^T ^l for the petitioner. ler Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of |a prayer that it be declared that the (ent on the Gangman post. |s that he was posted as Daily Wages in |c Works Department, Mahasamund. a|s Daiiy Wages employee in the PWD P'hereafter the services of petitioner and vide Annexure-P/3 dated 23 February >.1 to 4 have reinstated respondent No.5 |)een reinstated. The petitioner made a |<s Department on 6-3-2003 but nothing ^titioner submitted the same thing which >1. Ann^xure-P/1 dated 30 March 2000 which |ws that certain daily wages employees and since the work for which the daily ^leted, therefore, by order Annexure-P/1 |f those daily wagers who were appointed Ited w.e.f. 1.4.2000. No other material ^ppointed against some regular post has ^titioner was appointed against specific th^refore, hisservices were terminated, as |s devoid of any merit. r XI-HC-78 3?? •<ll<ll<')<l, ©Tflwis,l«l<liuy *II*IMI sh*ll<*> ^ 200 3<l^ifi ysi<n (lclt^si<<'El') sfi^TqirR-fi* (RITSfl^l Shlitl <•- B^nwflfer3ii^r As far as grievance of th^ removed along with the petitioner,| concemed, nothing has been plac^d been appointed, whether he has t| condition or he was appointed for on daily wages. Therefore, the pe<i case for interference by this Court| be dismissed and it is hereby disrn) <ni<itfi<flf *<i*«iTffrs'<3<Ri«i< ^ari^ff.aiTi^T petitioner that respondent No.5 was however, he was reinstated later on, is ed on record showing that how he has een reinstated on the same terms and iome another work for a speciflc period itioner has not been able to make out a The writ petition is, therefore, liable to ssed at the admission stage itself. Sdi- L.C. Bhaeloo JUtise L-