iN Tm; MADHYA PRADESH Baldad: Sahu, - S/o Shu Sitaram Sahu, Aged aboujt 35 years, In me Govef’rnmejxt Middie Schwi, Dania, Block & E§stristr miliMTARI LMP) ' [Dhanuleanlsnu' . Sio sin? Pqml Ram Sahu Aged about 41 years, ‘ V Lastly ejmphyed on the post of Contingency Peon, In the Government Middle $chool, Bagoud, Dism‘ctzg mlAM'rARI (My _ Block mun l § l ' WERSUS- l € e State of; adhya Pradesh, Department: of School Education, Through: it’$ Principal Secretary, ‘ ‘ r Mantralgyaj Vallabh Bhawan, ' V I 7 ) BHOPAL; (EH. 7 The Director Govemment of Madhya Pradesh, P.) ' The Dism‘ct Education ting, ' . 7 EEWTAm , Distn'ct: DE nq'r n .A aims .«‘ nPPuCATioN T l l l l x 9 g (77 53/; Lastly :employcd on the post of Contingency Peon, ...Al’PL1CANTs ‘ Public Instinctions, ‘: l :zl Cu? f STATE JAWUR Apnmmm wl- TRIBUNAL AT g‘ ORIGINAT APPLICATIONnow OF 2000 ' " } ? HIGH COURT OF CHHA1T|SfGARHfBILASPUR i mle Bench: Hon’ble Shrir Mani’ndra Mohan Shrivastava, J., Writ Petition ‘15} No.1988/2005 » , PETmoNERs; BaldefB Sahu and another Vérsus State :of M. P. and others ’ RESPoNDENTs; FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER _ ‘ Sci/e - Manindra Méhdn SHI‘i’va’s1 i . ? ¢N HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH BILASPUR L _ Smglé nch Hon’ble Shrl Mamndra Mohan Shnvastava J ‘ Writ Petltlon (s! No.198 [20051 ' ETmoNERs v Baideo gahu and another I ‘1 ‘ . " ' Versus ‘ ‘ ‘ . ‘ g ,V u S 4 ‘ i V RéSPONDENTS ‘ State of M.P.and others » 4‘1 shn Present Mazld Ah counsel : ‘ for the petlhoners V Shn AJay Dwuved: Deputy Govt Advocate for the State/respondents / i V O R D E R (Passed on [MApnl 201 O) 1 i ‘3 i This petition has been fled by the petitioner assamng legality and validity of iorder dated 29-04-2000 (Annexure A-4) by which sen/Ices of the petitioner have been terminated ‘Wd: , e v (2) t Petitioner No 1 was Initially appomted on 17-03-1989 on the post of contingency Peon on collector rate for a penod of 89 days Hrs servrces were later on ‘V " i contmLed for another 89 days vrde order dated 21-09-1989 (Annexure A-1) PetrtroLer No2 was rnltrally appomted on 31-03-1989 on the post of contingency Peon on collector rate for a period of 89 days Later on vrde order dated 09-08-1989 for another 89 days In the same capacrty lt Is submitted I that In vrew of the government crrcular dated 10-05-1984. upon completion of three l l years of servrce at the fxed salary, petitioners were given beneft of regular pay scale hrs servrces were continued l r r ‘ by declaring them as temporary members of contrngency establishment ln respect of z , ' petitioner No 1 order was passed on 23-11 1993 elevating his status to a regular ~ V member of contingency establishment and granted regular pay scale of Rs 750-945l- ' wef 28-09 1992(Annexure A 2) It Is submitted that similar order was passed m P i 6 respect of petitioner No.2 also. It is also submitted that w.e.f. 01 -O1-1 996, revised pay scale of Rs.2550-32OOI- was aiso extended to the petitioners which is reflected from I extract of service book (Annexure A-3). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that thepetitioners were never appointed on daily wage basis but appointed temporarily for a period of 89 days under contingency establishment. As such, there was no illegality in their appointment on the ground that they were appointed after 31-12-1988. lt is also submitted that before termination, no enquiry was held nor any notice was served on the petitioners nor one month‘s salary was paid. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioners. It is also submitted that as they were appointed for a period of 89 days and prior to government circular dated1 5-09~ 1989, circular dated 14-02-2000 could not be made basis for termination of their services. lt is submitted that the petitioners have continued in service for a long period and were granted regular status and pay scale. action of termination of their services is illegal. i at (3) Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that petitioners were appointed after 31-12-1988 without getting sanction from the Finance Department as also without any selection made by the duly constituted selection committee in accordance with the rules. The scrutiny committee had minutely scrutinized the case of the petitioners and it was found that initial appointment of the petitioners itself was illegal. lt is also submitted that petitioners were erroneously granted regular pay scale in violation of rules. As the appointment of the petitioners' was dehors rules and government instructions, petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief. (4) From the pleadings and material available on record. it is found that the petitioners’ initial appointment was clearly for a period of 89 days and appointment was made without following any regular process of selection, dehors rules and l k awmwzemcy —‘: » I a ’ without following constitutional procedure. Upon scrutiny, it was found that petitioners appointment was made during the period of ban. a: (5) in View of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs Umadew (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 overnment of Andhra Pradesh and others vs K Brahmanandam and others (zoos) 5 scc 241 and om SCC 1 employments dehors rules and made Without followmg regular process of selection and constitutional procedure, could not be regularized. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to regular status nor regular pay scale. Upon scrutiny, it was found that petitioners were appointed without due process of selection and dehors rules. Appointment of the petitioners was a back door entry, resultantly, they were terminated from service. There is no illegality in the action of the respondents. t$i s clal Liquidator vs. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 it is well settled that the daily wage appointments and daily wage temporary Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order passed earlier by the Tribunal on 27-05-2000 is vacated. There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd/r 1 Manindra Mohan Stifivastava Judge G ‘