c^\^]^^ 6 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH eOURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR. W.PfSlNo. (940 OF 2011 PETITIONER w -~A ^w^ ^r RESPONDENTS ^:1) :2) /•i3) Smt. Ainbabai, @ Gurbari, W/o. Shri Sukhnath, aged about 47 years, working in Reshain Beej Kendra, Bangursiya, Talisil and Dista-ict Raigarh (C.G.) Versus State of Chhatdsgarh, through Secretary,. [ Department of Graxnodyog Hathkargha Evam Reshain Dau Kalyan Singh Bhavan,Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) J Director/Head of Department, Gramodyog Hathkargha Evam. Resham, Sonakhan Bhawan, Ringh Road Raipur (C.G.) ©epu^ Director, Gramodyog HEilAikargha Evain Resham (Resham CeU) Urdana, Raigarh. District Raigarh (C.G.) ;4) Field Of5cer, Shaskjya Resham Beej Kendra, P-2 Batigursiya, Tahsil and Disti-ict Raigarh (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjnON OF INDIA y s>?- MGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'bleShriPrashantKumarMishra Writ PetltionfS) No. 1970/2011 PETITIONER : SmfcAmbabai@Gurbari Versus RESPONDENTS : State of OAattisgarh and otfiers Writ Petition fSYNo. 1971/2011 PETITIONER : PardesMRam Versus RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh and otfters Writ Petition fS^ No. 1972/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Santnun Versus State ofOihattisgarh and others Writ Petition fS) No. 1973/2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Difip Knmar Soni Versus State of Chhattisgwh and odiens Writ Petition (S) No. 1977/2011 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Sukhnatih Venus StatebfOihattisgarh amd ofliers Appearance: Shri Vipin Panjabi, counsel for the petitioaer. Shri Y.S. Thakur, DeputyAdvocate General forAe State. '"^' .-;'.<%». % . :",;y-l 1 ^.^.^ ^ ^ '""c^ 2-- WRFT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmJTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (15.04.2011) Writ Petition (S) No. 1970/2011, Writ Petition (S) No. 1971/2011, Writ Petition (S) No. 1972/2011, Writ Petition (S) No. 1973/2011 and Writ Petition (S) No. 1977/2011 have been preferred by the petitioners who were working as labourers in the Tusser Seed Centre, Sambalpuri, Bangursiya and Urdna. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are claiming regularization on the post of labourer in the Depariment of Gramodyog Hathkargha Evam Resham. Contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners had worked during the period 1989 to 1998 and petitioner Sukhnath worked till 2000 and thereafter the semces at daily wager were discontinued. He also submits that the petitioners are currently engaged by a society and payments are made, therefore the services ofthe petitioners are continued. (2) Leamed State counsel, appearing on advance notice, would submit that admittedly the petitioners have not worked after the year 2000, therefore no case for issuance of aay direction for regularization or even for consideration of their case for regulanzation is made out. (3) On perusal ofthe documents annexed with the writ petition, it would appear ftat on the petitioners own showing in (Annexure P-1) \lhey have worked for different periods between July 1989 to 2000 in ^^ the legal notice it has been mentioned in para 4 thereof that their services were discontinued and no work was allotted to them afier the said period was over, The legal noticesent by the petitioner has been replied by the Directorate of Rural Industries (Sericulture Sector) Chhattisgarh in which it is mentioned that in the State Govemments Circular issued on 5/03/2008 regularization of services of only such employees were ordered who were continuously working prior to 31/12/1988 orduringthe period of 1/01/1989 to 31/12/1997 and since the petitioners were not in continuous service, thereafter they are not entitled to regularization. (4) In the matter of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles as to when courts can order for regularization ofan employee. (5) Relying on the judgment of Umadevi (3) (supia) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in tfae matter ofSatya Prakash and ofliers VsLState of Bihar and otficrs, (2010) 4 8CC 179 has held thus in paragraph 8:- "8. In Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 this Court hdd that the courts are not expected to issue any direction for absprption/regularisation or pennanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees. This Court held that such directions issued could not be said to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme of mblic employment. This Court held that merely because a ' temporary employee or a casual wage woilcer is continued fbr a E: ^ time beyond the tenn of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. In view ofthe law laid down by this Court, the directions sought for by the appellants cannot be granted." (6) In the present case also the petitioners claim to be engaged on daily wages, without any selection process and have only wQ^ced during the period 1989 to 2000, tiiat too irregularly and also that, at present they are not continuing in semce even as daily wagers. (7) Considering case ofthe petitioners on tile touch stone ofthe law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any case for issuahce of direction to the respondents for consideration ofthe petitioners case for regularization. (8) As a consequence, the above writ petitions &ils and are hereby dismissed. (9) A copy ofthis order may be placed oa the record ofabove w^tt, petitions. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Nlishra Judge