r- IN THE HIQH CCtJ&T OF MABHyA_PBABESH_AT JABAU'im WBIT EETITIOi ef 1996 ^f^if£S^^ wv- wi^'^1^IEsS^^i i5f;-:"':-W-~--""' "'V PETITIONEH t BALWANT SINGH CH/tNBEL, S/0 Shri. Surendra Singh Chandel, Aged 47 Years, Borking as Cashier at Nagar Panchayat, Akaltara, Qistt. BILASP®'(M.P). Versus RESPCMDENTS s 1. Nagar Panchayat Akaltara Throagh its Chief Execative Offieer, Akaltara, Distt. BILASP0B (M.P). 2» Btrector, Urban Admlnistration, M.P., MGPAL (M.P). 3» Qeputy iliireetor Urban Adffliaistration, Bilaspur IM.vision, BILASP©R (M.P)< WBIT PETITION ©NDERARTIGLE 226/227 OF THE Ga'iSTITUTIOB OF INOIA .i& ^ 8^?/Z^> H18H COURT OF CHHATTISaARH : BilASPUR SiNQLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI MAMINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. WRIT PETITiON N0.1582/1S96 PETiTiONER: RESPQNDENTS: Balwant Singh Chandel ^ Versus Nagar Panchayat Akaitara and others d^ FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER ON ^"SGPTEMBER' 2010 --cya^ Sd/- Judge ;NSl% H!GHCQURT OF CHHAi TISGARH : B.l^SPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bie Shri Mantndra Mohan Shrivastava, J. PETITIONER RE3PONDENTS WRIT PETIT10N N0.1^2/1998 Baiwant Singh Chandei Versus Nagar Panchairait Akaitara and others WRiT PETmON UN R ARTICLE 22S/227 OF THE CONStTUTlON OFINOy< Prssent: - Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel fw the petitioner. Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsei for respondent No.1. Shri Ajit Singh, Panet Lawyer for the Stata/respondents No.2 and 3. ORDER (Passed on ...T.'.'.T. Septemiaer,201S) By this petition, petitioner has prayed k>r direcUon for regularisatfon of his service in the cadre of Cashier in Nagar Panchayat, Ataltara w.e.f. 14/4/1983 as also for direction to promote to the cadre of Upper Division Clefk w.e.f. 1/8?1^S with ail beneflte and seniortty on the post of Cashier and Upper Diviston Clerk w.e.f. 14/04/1983 and 1/8/1995 respecUvely with ail pecuniary benefits and arrears. An altemative prayer has been made that the r^pondents be directed to reguiarise the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 22/4/19^ as per recommendations of District SelecUon Committee dated 22/4/1885 (Annaxure P/6) 2. Brief factual matrix giving rise to this petition are that the petiBoner was initiatiy employed in the eapacity as Cashier on daiiy wage basis in Nagar Panchayat, Akaltara on 14/4/1983. Whiie he was continuing, an advertisement (Annexure P/4) was published invitir^ applicatlons for appointnaents to various posts including the post of Cashier. Pursuant to Bie sakl advertisement, tiie •A • '^ 2 .'-V.- ^y petMoner submitted his application. However, the said process of recruitment was not brought to the iogicai name and the petitioner eontinued to wcrk as daily wage empioyee untii his case for reflularisaiion was corK^dered by the screening coromittee. On 22/4/199^ pursuant to Governmenfs poiicy decjsion to .(egularise daiiy wage employees, petitfoners case was recommended subject to Governmenfs approvai. As it was found that the petitioner was over age, recommendation was sent to e Government for retexatlon in ^e to faciiitats reguiarisation to the petitioner and finaily in the order dated 27/4/1995 (Aimexure P/9), petitioner was regularised in ssrvice on the post of Cashier and appointed on probation for a period of two years. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner wouid submit ttiat once the petitionei's service has been r^ularised, the entire service rendered ty/ h!m as daily wage employee since his initial date of appointment i.e. 14/4/1983 are iiabie to be counted for the purposes of reckoning Ws seniority. It is argued Uiat ever since the petitioner was initially appointed as daiiy wage empioyee, he was continuing in service without any break and therefore past service rendered by him as daiiy wage ampioyee couid not be ignored for the purposes of seniority. Me further submttted that though in the year 1985, process of reguiar appointment was initiated and the petitioner had submitted his apptication and he was fuily eligibie and having minimum quaiification for appointment to the post of Cashier, he vas iiiegaliy deprived of regular appointment until e order of reguiarisation was passed in the year 1985. Learned counsei tor the petitioner reiies upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnvan and others v. Limi Niri and others passed on 20/04/2010 in Qvil Appeal No.3512/10. -^. ^ 4. On the ottier hand, submission of laarned counse* for Uie r^pondents No.1, 2 and 3 is that the petitionei's ciaim for grant of seniority from ttie date of initiai appointment on daity wage basis is untenabie in law as there was no sanctioned post and the appointment of the petitioner was without fdlowing any regular process of selection. it is also submitted that ttiere was no order of appointment but the petitfoner was merely employed to work on daiiy ws^e basis and it was only pursuant to Governmenfs poHcy of regularisatlon promuigated vkie circuiar dated 9/1/1990 that the petitioner and other daily wage empioyees were considered for regularisation by screening committee and upon relaxation of age, the petitioner was reguiarised in services vide order dated 27/04/1995 (Annexure P/9) and placed on probation for a period of two yeare. It is aiso submitted that under the policy of regularisation dated QitttWQ [Annexure R- !(A)], it was clearly st4»ulatedin clause 10 ther»>Tthat seniority would be granted oniyfrom the date of order of regularisation. 5. From the pieadings and matBrial on record, il is not in di^ute that the petitioner was employed as daiiy wage employee withwit ther®being any process of seleetion or the constitutional procedure for reguiar appointment. The petitioner has not disputed by any rejoinder that the services of tto petittoner were regularised pursuant to Governmenfs poiicy of reguiarisatfon dated 9/1/1990 [Annexure R-I(A)] fiied by respondent ^to.1. 6. in the case of Smt. Saroj Vyas v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P.(S) hto.13^/05 decided on 3/2/2010, this Court relying upon She decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Airihra Pradesh ^*-- r'\ •^. ^ 4 '^L./ and others v. K. Brahmanandam and others (2008) 6 SCC 241 and Stete^of Puniab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and others, (2008) 1 2 SCC 672 held- "10. i have considered rivai contentions made by ttie parties and gone through the records of the case. !t is we!t settled by catena of decisions that the period <rf service randered as daily wage or adhoc basis wouk! not court for ssmorty untess it is found that the jnjtia! dste of appointment was in acsordanee with ruies prescribed for making reguiar selection. Ciaim for regularisation from the date prior to the date of ragular appointment so as to inciude the enfire period of seroice rendered as da'iy wage or adhoc appointes liabte to be rsjected in view of the judgmenl of the Supreme Court in the csse of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. K. Brahmanandam and others, State of Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and athers (Supra)." 7. Leamed counset for the petitioner sought to reiy upon the deciaon of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnyan (Supraj. The aforesaid decision was recommended in the fact situation which is totaiiy different from ttie present one and would be apparent on the bare perusai of the said decision. in that case, the appellante before the Supreme Court were ihose who were appointed on temporary and adhoc basis on ttie condition that they wouid be reguiarissd according to rufes. After taking into consideraUon the various ciauses in their adhbc appointment order, the Supreme Court came to the conciusion that as the appointment letter is issued in the case of the appeliante theFein appointing them as temporary and adhoc basis as Assistant Engineer mentioned that they wiil be governed by service rules and wouid be reguiarised according to ruies, it was held that in such cases, benefit of seniority from the inifiai date was required to be given. The fact situaijon in Uie aforesaid case is cleariy distinguishabte and not applicable to the facte or the present case. Consequently, the ciaim of the petitioner for grant of sentority on the post of Cashier w.e.f. 14/8/1883 is not tonabto in law and is therefore liaMe to be rejected. Further, ft has to be noted that that the petitioner's reguiarisation was under a regularisation poiicy daiad ^ 9/1/1990 which dearly contained a condiSton in elause 10 that seniortty wouid be reckoned only from the date of order of reguiar appointrnant. For this reason also, the judgment in the case of S.Sumnyan (supra) is not appHcabte to the facts ofthe present case. 8. In view of the coiwlusion drawn by Uiis Court, petiUaner is not entidad to their claims as prayed for in the petiUon. Accordingiy, ttie pefitkxi is dismissed. No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^ 'i