HIGH “ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. 134 of 2003 Petitioner Vs. Smt. Puspa Chatri Resondents p State of Chhattisgarh & others. Post for pronouncement ofthe Judgment and Order on a? I/O7/2008 ’Sd/— Satish K. Agnihom' Judge R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR “Wm i’eirmem N: E34 42i‘2é}§}% Smt. Puspa Chatri, W/o Shri Pravin Kumar Chatri, Asstt. Téacha, Forest Primary School Dugli, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (CG). VERSUS RESPQNBFNTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary, Depamnent of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Territorial/Genera Forest Division, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3. Forest Range Officer, Dugli Range, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) PF FYHQWER “S Present I Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. y- (Fasseti on this Q! day ofJuly, 2W8) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant regular pay scale - of Rs. 545-925 per month w.e.f. 01.04.86 with arrears of pay and consequential benefits, 2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis on 10.09.83. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted fix salary @ Rs. 300/— per month W.e.f. 23.10.84 (Annexure P/2) on the post of Deputy Teacher. The petitioner continued to work as Deputy Teacher in Forest Primary School, Dngli, Distt. Dhamtari. Subsequently, the State Government, by circular dated 17.03.86/23.04.86 (Annexure‘P/4) took a decision that the Deputy Teachers who have completed one year on 01.04.86 may be granted regular pay scale of Rs. 545—925/—. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner completed one year service on 01.11.85 and as such she was entitled to regular pay scale / W.e.f. 01.04.86. Thus, this petition was tiled on 19.11.2002, seeking above stated relief. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages basis. However, the petitioner was granted fix pay of Rs. 300/— on haying been appointed as Deputy Teacher by.order dated 23.10.84 (Annexure P/2). The circulars dated l7.03.86/23.04.86 (Annexure P/4) makes it clear that the Deputy Teachers, who have completed-one year service on 01 .04.86 would be entitled t0 regular pay scale of Rs. 545—925/—. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the same pay scale w.e.f. Ol 04.86. W 4. Per contra, Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State, would ‘~. K J‘s. submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay, as according to the petitioner, the cause ofaction arose in April, 1986 and the petitioner has fleld this petition after a period of 16 years, without explaining any justification or reasons for laches and delay. The petitioner, being appointed on daily wages basis, has no right to the'post as well as to the regular pay scale. The regular pay scale was granted to those Deputy Teachers who were appointed on regular selection. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of grant ofrcgular pay scale of Rs. 545- 925/— w.e.f. 01.04.86. The petitioner was given regular appointment as Assistant Teacher w.e‘.f. 02.01.1992 (Annexure R/l) and as such the petitioner was not entitled to any regular pay scale prior to 02.01.1992. The petitioner was paid salary of the Assistant Teacher from January, 1992 till date. He has been paid all admissible dues. Thus, the petition deserves to ' be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the _ pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is dmitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as dailywager dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment. Thus, the petitioner has no right to seek regularization on'the basis of any circular. a u) £10 g 6. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others] observed in para 47 as under: “47 When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual Worker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary casual or contractual in nature Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate espectation forkbeing confirmed in the ost when an appointment to the ost could be made only y following a proper rocedure or selection and in cases concerned in consu tation with the Public Service Commission Therefore the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced b tem orary contractual or casual employees It cannot also e he d that the State has held out any promise while engaging these ersons either to continue them where they are or to make t em permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.” 7. In the matter of R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and Others2, the Supreme Court observed in para 16 as tinder: “16. Even the State cannot make rules or issue any executive instructions by way of regularization of service. It would be in violation of the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the constitutional scheme of equality clauses contained in Article 14 and l6.” 8. Again in the matter of Surinder Prasad Tiwari Vs. U.P. Rajya Krishi Ufpadan Mandi Parishad and Others3 it was observed in para 35 by the Supreme Court as under: “35. Equal opportunity is the basic feature of our Constitution. Public employment is repository of the State power. Certain status and powers emanate from public employment.” In the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.4, the Supreme Court observed as under : “34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wager to seek regularisation. Regularisation can only be done in accordance with the rules and not dehors the rules. In E. Ramakrishnan v. State ofKerala this Court held that there can be no regularisation dehors the rules. The same view was taken in Kishore (Dr) v. State of ‘ 2006 (4) SCC I 1 2006 (6) soc 430 39006 (7) soc 634 ' i 403 Maharashtra, Union of India V. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Tribunal for regularising the services of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance with the rules was set aside although the petitioner had been working regularly for a long time. 35. In Surinder Singh Jamwal (Dr) V. State 0fJ&K it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for riggarisation as regularisation is governed by the statutory 10. Further, in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Desh Rajs, the Supreme Court observed as under : “7. Whatever may be the import and purport of such regularisation rules, in view of the recent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secy., State ofKarnataka V. Umadevi (3), it is now well settled that the appointments, if made in Violation of the constitutional scheme of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia, would be rendered illegal and, thus, void ab inilio. No regularisation rules, therefore, could have been made by the State of Uttar Pradesh in derogation of the statutory or constitutional scheme. 11. The petitioner has filed this petition after a period of 16 years from the date I of the cause of action arose. Moreover, there is no explanation or justification for such inordinate delay and belated approach of the petitioner. So far as the question of delay and belated approach in filing the petition is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Dass vs. Union of India and Others6, observed as under : 6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 1n an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant t0 assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashaa’ v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 5 rmM In qcc 257 " 274 Vb Applying the Well settled principles of law as stated above t0 the facts of the present case wherein the petitioner was appointed on dailywages basis, grant of fixed pay 0f Deputy Teacher does not confer any right on the petitioner for grant of regular pay scale 0n the strength of circular dated l7.03.86/23.04.86. Thus, no writ/direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner. The petition is devoid ofmerit. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. NO order as to costs. // i Sd/— l Vy/ , \ \ Sau'sh K. Agmh ' otri / x Judge '/