COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:- Hon'bSe Shri Dhlrendra lyiishra &_ Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Aepeitant Petltloner Respondents WriiADDeai No.385/2009 Sharda Singh, S/o Shri Balram Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o Chhoteatarmunda, T.V. Tower Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Co- operative Marketing Federatlon IVlaryadit, through its Distt. Marketing Officer, Distt. Janjgir-Charnpa (CG) 2. Additiona} Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Raipur 3. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (CG) 4. Sub Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (CG) ^Beal.jjrader Section 2 (1i of the Chhattlsaarh_Ji!Qh Court (Appeal to Divlsjon Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsei for the appellant. Shri S. K. Mishra, Panei Lawyer for the State. Oral Order (Passed on 7th of December, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mlshra. J:- This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23rd of November, 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.6808/2009, whereby the writ petition fiied by the appeiiant against his termination from services has been dismissed. (2) Learned counsei for the appeilant submits that the appeliant was working as a peon unjnterruptedly for period of 7 years from 25.09.1995 till 01.11.2002. However, his services were terminated by an oral order on 1.11.2002. The appeilant -s. fiied an applicatlon before the Labour Court against his termination. But, it was not entertained. Therefore, he filed an appiication under Section 55 (2) ofthe CG Co-operative Societies Act and Dy. Registrar vide Annexure P-2 dated 7.1.2008, aliowed the application with a finding that the termination of the servlces of the appellant was discriminatory as his juniors were allowed to work. The appeai preferred by the respondents was further dismissed by the Joint Registrar vide Annexure P-3 dated 31.03.2009. However, the second appeai preferred by the respondents was allowed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide order dated 16.09.2009 and the writ petitiQn fiied by the appeiiant herein has been dismissed by the impugned order. Since the appellant was working for a period of 7 years and deductions from hls provident fund were also made, therefore, the finding that the appellant was a daiiy wager was not justified even otherwise, removai of the appellant was discriminatory as heid by the Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Societies. (3) From perusal of the impugned order as weli as the order passed by the Additionai Registrar, Co-operative Societles vide Annexure P-1, it is evident that It was never disputed that the appejlant was a daily wager and hls appointment was pureiy on temporary basis. He was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment and he had no iegal right to continuation and reinstatement of regujarization in service. (4) We are of the opinion that the order impugned is strictiy in accordance with law and no interference is caiied for. There is no substance in this appeal, which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. —————- Priya Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge