^ \<r)u ^ IN TI-E HIGH COURS OP JITDIC^ 3'URE AT HELASPUR (CG) WRIT PSTITION N0. f^-Sl^—O?2005 BE;Wr3BBN mri.Lal S/o. mha.n^: aged.about 40.y©ars^ E?c.» Goat Attendan-c^ v^t^ertnary De)artmeHwr^sident"of Villaae Poudi Uproda/ FEahsil Katghora,, District IDrba (CG). A. ^m^- [ 1 k?- '- ^ 1 3* 4«" ^ PETZITONEK i._N Q. Tne State of C3-iha'tt4sgarh, fmrough Cae ;Secretary Department of Veterinary Services/ Mantralay, D.K.S. Baildi-ng/ Raipur (co). Ihe BLrector^.- Veterinary Services^ CCahattisgarh, I^ipur (03). ^ The ^olnt DLxec-tor^ Veterinar^r Services^ Ei3.aspur (CG) .//y ),]b^^7. »^i.-:^-c<:<'-...^ Ite Joint DL rector, ', ^ ^^ ^^ ^? Veterinary Ssrvices,' I€>rba, ^'^^'''^'"^ u^ ^-nLstrict I€>rba (co). ^.•<^tc^" _...-"Z /;^<> ^\': '^•' ^ ^ r^ ( ^ <^^ ^F:^W.. ^L ^y VL^ ^* WRIT 'i% .^.-1................ o^^•^ WRIT PETITZON UI'TDER ARTZCLES 226/227 O? IHE CONSTITUTION 01? INDZfi HIGHjC^L[RTOF^HHATTISGARH_LB|LASW^ WRiTPETmON N0,1494 QF 2005 PETiTIONER Hari Lai RESPONDENTS Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petltion under Artide 226/227 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) Singie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Shaiiendra Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 4th day of Aprll, 2011) Heard iearned counsei for the parties» 1. 2. By this petltlon, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitloner In service with fuli back wages and reguiarize thereafter. The facts, in nutsheil, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of G.oat Attendant on 27/10/1983 w.e.f. 05/07/1983 on temporary basis at coliector rate. Thereafter, he continued to work for some tsme. Subsequently, -the post of Goat Attendant was aboiished vide memo dated 24/1 1/1 S©2 (Annexure R/1) and ser^ices ofthe petitioner was discontinued. Be that as It may< it is a trite iaw that a daiiy wager cannot clalm regularizatlon, continuance or reinstatennent in service on the basis of appointment, whlch was temporary for a fixed period and aiso not in accordance with iaw and the same was de hors the constitutiona! scheme of employment. (See Secretary, Staie of Karnata.ka and Qthsrs us. Umadevi (3) ana Qthers1, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutiaals Ltd. v. Workmen, !ndian Drugs & Pharmace^ffcate ^^ 5} 4 SCC1 / -TO^ i ::^yls% I V7.^ Arun 2 ^'. ^::^! 1..^!^^ v. D^^^d ^d ai.^/ «ssd Stste of Pifryeb »ndOthers v. S'.'fj't Slngh and OttiQt's4]. 5. Applying the wel! settied principies of Eaw to the facts of the on hand, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed«No orderastocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (2007) 1 SCC 408 3(2008)10SCC1 4 (2009) 9.SCC 514