W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Sk No. 7201 of2008 {W W INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AggL'h0g; J. Present: Shri Alok Nigam, Advocate for the petitioner. _ Smt. Smita' Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondems. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 07 day of January, 201 1) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to , reinstate the petitioner by giving regular appointment and reguiarizing him to the post With regular scale ofpay and other benefits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Peon with the respondent-depaitment on ad hoc basis. After completion of hjs‘tenure, his services were not extended even when the work and conduct ofthe petitioner was found to be satisfactory. 0n the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis. Thus, he cannot claimregularization or continuation in service. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. The petitioner has not filed any appointment order except a certificate showing payment of salary tor some period. The petitioner has titrther RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PETITIONER .- Bihan‘ Lal Sahu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & failecl to emblish his right asto why he should be continued or regularized when admittedly, the appointment was on ad hoc basis for a limited period. It is also not clear asto for what period the petitioner had worked with the respondent-department. . It is a trite law that a temporary, ad hoe employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service 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. A contract appointment for a temporary period cannot be directed to be extended or continued after term ofthe appointment has come to an end. (See Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Others vs. Umadevz’ (3) and Others’, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workman, . Indian Drugs cfé Pharmaceuticals Ltd.2, Ojficial Liquidator v. Dayanand and others3 and State ofPzmjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others"). . Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand. the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotril Judge Amit (W ‘ Sd/— 1 (200$ 4 scc 1 3 2007 (1) scc 408 3 (2008) 10 scc 1 4 (2009) 9 scc 514