IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADE3H AT JABALPUR mp. \{oQ SKH’W of 1996 PE‘TITIONEER : \~ SADHU RAM s/a'Shri. Chhattu Das Mahant, aged 42 Years, R/O V111. numar‘para,/ rem Sakti, Dist’t. BILAgpUR (M39) K v ‘ y xy l { g’ONDENT : S ‘ 1 y ’ Versus 1. M‘P. Stake Mining Corporation Through its Managing Director, Mah‘arana Pratap Nagar, BHOPAL (M.?3a 2. Deputy General Manager (Mines) M.P. State Mining Corporation Sub Office Baraduar, Distt. JHABUA (Moph 3 . Deputy General Manager (Mines) M,P. State Mining Corporation,“ Meghnagar, Distt. Bilaspur (M.P T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA x ) 1N THE: HIQ—i COURT OF MADE-WA PRADESH AT JABALPUR ‘1‘ F3 67WCmf)— ar M M ionmwwwl, 14/ I: i ‘ QhJ %m@k& mg’ vm; wo. éz‘i'm of 1996 amawavagam mawmmg 6e ‘ §§mwh its Kanmng mxea‘hot. Aning $arw:atian. iaipur. nah. gammcw § wuty genetal manager mines} amactlsgazh $tate mining éorparatim, m ¢££iee Datamar: that: «anjgit-¢hanpa(e.¢.) imw aemrax uauagex wine's) $.P. Estate mining ¢azporat1om . Makingan 13.5%: $hahua‘ig’lq MW i? 3w Mg» HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WR‘T PETITION NO. 2474 OF ’1 996 PETITIONER Sadhu Ram Versus RESPONDENTS Chmttlsgarh State Mlmng Corporatban & Others Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K Agnihotri, J‘. Present :4 Shri Bharat Rajput,-Advocate for the petitioner; ‘ Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan; Advocate-for tho respondents ,, No 1 & 2 ’ ' ' ' Shn Sanjay K Agrawal Advocate for the respondent No3 RDER gORAL) (Passed on this 31 s‘ day of March 2010) t Heard ieamed counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a wri in the nature of » mandamus directing the respondent authorities to continue him on the post of Driver since 1—8-1 987 with ali consequential benefits and further, the petitioner may be permitted to join'at the piace of his original posting l 2. According to the petitioner the petitioner was appomted on 3-1 0-1977. Thereafter, GPF was deoucted from his saiary, i I therefore, the petitioner presumes that his initial appointment as daily wager was regularized, ’The petitioner was transferred to Meghnagar on 31-7—1987. The petitioner attempte¢to join the duties at Meghnagar, but he was \\ declined and thereafter, he made a representation before-the? , \ i s\\ \. \\ ( authorities. Thus, this petition seeking a direction to allow him to continue his service at the originai place of postirg withrall consequential benefits. On the other hano, Shri Agrawal, learned counselappearing I for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner was, appointed on 2-1 4987 on daily-wages-basis. The paitioner ewas pia‘ced under suspension for certain"'misconduct and the , suspensiOn was revoked with effect from 1-8-1987 on tendering apology by the petitioner for his misconduct. By t order dated 31 -7-1 987 (Annexure —- R/3A), thepetitionerwas transferred-to the sub office Meghnagar. However, the petitioner failed to compiy with the order of transfer and remained absent from his duties for a period of about 8 years. Thereafter, the instant petition was filed on 29-64996. Thus,, r the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy or relief. $hri Goverdhan‘ learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 adopts the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. On query, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner expresses his inability to produce the copy of appointment order as well as the order of regularization, as he oiaims to be ~ a regular employee. The submission of the petitioner that since GPF was deducted from his salary, he may be treated as regular employee does not merit acceptance; it appears ‘ that the petitioner was a daiiy wager employee. However, the petitioner has not given any explanation for not-joihlng- their \ x" K transferred place i.e. Meghnagar except that he was declined to join at Meghanagar, but it is not the case of the petitioner" r that the petitioner rafter refusal to join at Meghnagar came back to the original place for posting. The petitioner rhade representation on 13-84987 (Annexure - P/8) stating; the I above factstbut thereafter till 1996 he has not taken any steps. The petitioner slept over his claims for about Qtyeare, waiving his right, if any. ‘lt cannot be held that the petitioner has complied with the . transfer order, as he remained absent for about 8 years. Even otherwise, the petitioner was a daily wager. It is well settled l principle of law that the appointment of daily wager is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. ‘Daily wager’ means wages paid on daily. basis, may be monthly or weekly. Since the petitioner has not worked for r about 8 years, as daily wager, he may not be entitled to any- relief. 6. “Be that as it may, the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the Supreme Court,» in umpteen number ofdecisions, has made clear that thegemployees. : appointed on temporaryidaily wages basishave no: right to continue in service or regularization. The appointment itself is de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. 7. lndisputably, the petitioner wasappointed, on daily wages I. = basis and not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. A temporary, advhoc employee/daily wager- \. v" w cannot ciaim regularization, continuaace or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with Iaw and the same was de bars the constitutional scheme of emplOyment. (See Secretaiy, State of v Kamataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others’, tndian‘ V Drugs & Pharmaceuticais Ltd_ v. Workman, Indian Drugs & - Phannaceuticals Ltd.2, Ofgcial Liquidator v. Dayanand and‘ i» ' other? and State of Punjab and Others v. Surfit-Singh and r Others“). ' r. 8.7 sin view of foregoing, for the reasons stated hereinabove and appiying the weii settied principles of law to the facts of the v presentcase wherein the petitioner was appointed purely on daily wages basis and remained absent for‘more than 8 years,‘ he is not entitled to any relief. - 9. ln the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto -- - costs Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge - Gowri 1 (2006) 4 scc 1 2 2on7 (1) soc 408 . ‘ 3 (20%) to soot 4 (2009) 9 soc 514 s, hm“ '_