IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE N.P.AT JABALPUR V.P'.Sp.. y1'?;';^::''' 197 . _...-, '.-^- — PETI TION2R ( RES POEIDENTS' 1 The S.t&te'of cMiattisgsria,, A>^i<v\^*vie'»JI~ fvv.t.rcptf^'o^-K''. ctt yt/~ <-&»Tl- (n-itf dtited K^Bijji.ira^ ^[^^i .,"•''. (* f^ ^-^' •aa S axena. nESFONDENTS7l?ETITlOM3R •iSS&'^'39'-'" ~ Versus . 1. Smt.Gita Bai. iv-ifeof S-hahaeo aged 56 years. '2. Smt .'-haildrika Bai wife o£ laxrai prs.sad aqed 49 '/-ears • 3. Smt.-iasham Bai'Wife of Deocharan aged ,about SSxyax : 47 years. • . Smt.Shanti Bai aged about.46 years• , All Class IV servants in' the Govt. Girls,Collage,3ilasour. PETI?ION UNDER &RTIGLE 226/227 OF THE CON3TITUTION OF INDI n- XI-HC-22 3]n^T«RT R-ii'n -wiSl' shHttitllia ^u^ 3^ '<11<IICI<1, »tflwi6,KflWy 3ii^l «n<i«irBWKI Sitiach ^.....;V;..|...].;.-.....^ ^gg DB: ^ii^ifi ?«it<g<4ti^a Hon'ble Shri JysticeA, l' & Hon bie Shri Justice Sat 1.S.20Q5 Heard Mr. Sanjay S. petit'onsr /StaSe. In thiswritpetitionuhder the State of Chhattisgarh has passsd by ths State Administra 690/88 (M.P.NQ. 1814/88), The facts briefly stated ^ aforesaid application claiming since their first appointments CQ'tege. The Respondents N". I of the rsspondents were se"j continuous'y upti! they were ts] 16.5.1988 and 16.7.1988. The Tribunal to quash ihe said "rder^ before the Tribuna! as Annexure Ths State of Madhya stating thsrein that the respond^ GQ'/ernment and they were and thsy wers not being paid froj wsrs bsing paid from ths amoi hoste!. Ths Tribuna! afterconsiq considerins the !aw laid down bs A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2049,A.!.R. Ajarwa!, 'eamsd Govt. Advocate for the ^rticte 226/2270f the C-onstitution of !ndia chaHenged the order dated 18.3.1997 tra^ive Tribuna! i" Transfer Appticatio" NQ. triat <hi<i?<'i41-i tii*i<-Ti"ftTs'<'l <Ri«i< Spsrf^ITSn^T L Patnask. C.J. sh K. Agnihoiri, j. )re that the respondents hersin fifed the they ha'/e been working continuously |n the hoste! of the Government Giris and 2 wsre ssn/ina since 1975 and rest (•ing from 1982-83. They had worked ts^minated from sep.'ice by orders dated [rsspondents made a prayer before the oftermination annexed to the application P/7 and P/8. Pl'adesh fited return befors the Triburial 'nts werenever eniployees ofthe State emj'loyees under the Wardsn of the Hoste! frojn the Go'/t. fund or cont'ngency fcnd, but Unts cQlfected fror" the students of the jering the case of the parties and after the Apex Court 'n (1986) 1 S.C.C. 637, 19&7 -S.C-. 2342 andA.!.R. 1982 S.C. 1473 ^ XI-HC-22 sn^rsRT f^ifesn^r SBfiliflfttT ^m^'^^- 'Sv^ •<ii<ii<i<i, ^Tdwis, &ciray ^l'4i(*h *<i*<ni (niicn ^; 200 311^1 ^WIWtlRd —^- <t'ratd<n^ WRffif(gcft (Rresn: ^si^irsn^r hsld that the respondente whQ'pays been worKing trom very !onfl UtV.e in the hostel of the department |jeservs a direcfson f"!- consideration for reguSarizatioR on priority basi^ against available vacant post or posts becom'ngavaitabte'nthenear^iture. They a!sQ dsse"/s par'ty in paywith regular Class !V GQ'.'ernrosnt ^ of their respective appointmenl mployees simslariy situated w.e.f. the date s. !n para 12 of the smpugned "rdsr the Tribunal issued foltowing direcB|3n:- "AccoKSingly, splp/fcsfof 'is altowed. Respandents a dirscted to consider c^ses of applicants for rsgular'zation wsthtn ff?ree months, affisrscn^enmg ffism indiykSualiy as perel'g'bil'ty for regularszaVon in acco'dfsncs wsffii due prowdws and rules of (fte departm&nt an avaUab'iity of vacanc'ss at present or in future. UnW such cQnsSderaffon, re^ixsndents are furiher cSrsctsd to engage appScants 'n ffiie same ^mrk with parity ofpay and other fadSSes at par wjth s'n'ilarly situatl^d empkiyses. Respwsdent No.i is fyrffter d'rected to pay the d'ftefence of fte sa,/a;y togefterw t a/fowances to the app/fcante psyafifs fo C/ass ?r smployees vnthin a period of ffiyse months fmm ffiie <fete Qfcommunicatian offfiis order." Mr. -Sanjay S. Agarwa!, that since ths respondsnte ws| learned counse! for ths petitior.sr submits 's "ot Go\'t. sen/ant and wers empioyses •n the hoste! of the eol'ege a"d wers paid out of funds co!!scted fron'i the studente of the hostel, no di'ect!Qn fos" reguianzation couid have been si'/sn bv the Tribuna!. He futther subffi'ts thst the students ths'rss'ves have made soms comp!ajpts against the respQnderits and the respondents do not deserye c^ns'deration for regu!arization. .isfl^feil_ XI-HC-22 ^"ji.TqiT •Ki^Aan^T shliti tlRa IKii.a^jiKS^ItS wffi •^•^it'S^i-S^: T^^IPIRPT, tnn«'is,tslcljuy 3TT^T *<ach Hpini a><<i«»> V^ 200 f^% Mr. Agarwal does not d'spt of the Govt. Giris C-oHege. The Seroants unti! their sep."ces were ssttied in the case of State of Har (1992) 4 S.C.C-. 118 that the snc raises a prssumpt'on that thesr s' permanent basis and iri such regutarization and consider regij present case 'tis not in dispute th^ since 1975 and others were sngaj prssumptio" that thsir services w deserys to bs considered for regs and circulars then prevaiHng. !n cg 6f the resoondents, the authol r°gu!arizatJQn can taks 'nto accou as to whether ornotthe respond^ with the ru'es Q.1' cireulars for regu!^ !n our considered Qpinion tj sxercise our extra ord'nary jurisdi| order passed by the Tribuna!. The | Sd/- Chief Justice •<>l<ltd<ll-f 41'<fi'l'ffrs'<!) <R|<-<;|< ^3l)^1T3i1^?T |ts ths position that ths hosts! was part [•espondents Qbviousiy were not Govt. Iregularized. But the !aw has bee" ws!! ^ana & others Vs. Piara S'ngh & othere (agement of employees for tong speils |rvtees ars rsquired on the reguiar and the Govt. shou'd frame a scheme of |!arizatioR of such emptoyees. !n the (t two of the respondents were engaged bed since 1982-83. t-jencs, Shere was a ^rs required i" the hostei. Hsncs, they gililarizatio" in accordance with the rutes |se there is some comptaint against any ^ity CQnsider'ng the respondents for ht the said cQmplaints and then decide |nts couid be regu'arized in accordance IrizaSon. his is not a fit case where we shou'd in Irtion interfere with the directions in the iCTit petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihoti Judge