Petjtjoner HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 4006 of 2007 Ishwari Prasad Yadav, S/o. Shri Pachkoad Prasad Yadav, aged about 43 years, occupation Service R/o. Purani Basti Janjgir, Disbict Janjgir Champa Respondents Versys 1) The State of ChhatBsgarh, through the Sscretery, Departmsnt of Water Resources, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Chief Engineer, Minimata Bango Prqject Department of Water Resources, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). 3) Madan Kumar Mtshra, S/o. Shiv Nandan Pump Operator Jal Prabandhak Anuvibhag, Karmank-1, Janjgir, Kstrict Janjgir-Champa (CG). (Writ Petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitotionof India.) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel forttie petitjoner. Shri AIok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the State.. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2.4-2008) By this petition filed under Arfcle 226/227 ofthe Gonstitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefe. 7.1 This Hon'bte Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents & directing to produce entire concem records, before Hon'ble Courtfor its kind perusal. 7.2 May Idndly issue a writ in the nature of marKlamus commanding the respondent and directtherein to regularize the petitioner from dt. 19.01.1988 instoad of regularization dated 2.7.2004 with all consequential benefrts. - 2 - ^ 7.3 May kindty issue appropriate writ or dlrecBon to the respondent to any other relief to the petttion which Hon'ble Courtdeem fit& proper. 7.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 more particular the respondent no.2 to promote the petitioner priar to the date of promotion of Uie respondent no.3 who is junior to the petitioner. 2) The facts as averred in the petiUon are that initially ths pefitiwier was appointad on the post of Assistant Pump Operator on daily wage basis on 1-5- 1981. The impugned order 19-1-1988 (Annexure P/2) regularizmg the daily wage employees was passed, whereby the case of the pNitioner was not considered. The petitioner made a representation dated 22-9-1^8 (Annexure P/1) to the respondents-authoritles to consider his case, thereafter, fited this petition on 24-6-2007 i.e, afteralong period ofnineyears. 3) The firsl cause of action arose in the year 1988 when soma other daily wage employees were regularized. The petitioner, after a period often years, made a representation dated 22-9-1998 (Annexure P/1) for consideringhis case to the respondents/authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner ffled a petidon being Writ Petition No. 1 150/2001, which was disposed crf by this Court en 10- 2-2004 with a direetton to the respondents-authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner within a perbd of four months from the ctate of receipt of the representation. Thepetitioner, thereafter, was appointed on the establishment of work charged and confingency employees as Pump Operator on the pay scate of Rs.2750-70-3800-7&44E»/- by order dated 2-7-2004 (Annexure P/3). The pet'rtioner has filed the preserrt petttion on 24-6-2007 praying that the petitioner be regularized with effect from 1988 instMd <rf regutarization with ^fect from 2-7-2004, with all consequaitial beneflts. 3- 4) I have heard learned counsel tor tte pettoner, parused ptaKtings and documente appended thereto. 5) Law on regularization is very clear ttiat appointment of a daily wager dehors the constitutional scheme of emplc^ment and not in awordance with taw, is not a legal appointment. The employee appointed ss daily wager has no right to Uie post, to continue on the post or regutarizafion on the post. tn the present case, according to leamed counssl for the petitiwier, the petittoner was initially appointed as daily wage worker on 5-1-1981 amJ thereafter daily wage Pump Operator en 1-4-1990 and the authoriUes have regutarized hun with efFect Trom 2-7-2004. The petitioner has not taton any action/^eps after 1988 till fiting of the representation on 22-9-1998. The petitionar has sto|rt over his rights fbr a long period without explaining iaches and ctelay. 6) It is well ssttted principle of taw that a person, who has slept over his right, is not entiUed to any sympathy from the Court. 7) It is well setUed that High Gourt in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assi^ the tardy and the indotent or the acquiescent and Uie lethargic as the belated approach may have ttie effect of infliding n<A only hardshlp as inconvenience but also injustice to third parties (See: Jagdish Narain MalUar Vs. The State of Bihar & otiiers1, P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2, State of M.P. & others Vs. Nandla! Jaisvwriand ofters3 Bum Standard Co. Ltd. & others Vs. Dinabandhu Majunwtor & anoBier4 and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Through tts Chairman & Managing Director & anottier Vs. K. Thangappan & another^. 1AIR1973SC 1343 'AIRl974sc227l 3(1986)4SCC566 4(l»?)4SCei72 S(2006)4SCC322 LI- 8) In ttie matter of U.P. Electrieity Board Vs. Puran Chandra Pandey & others the Supreme Court observed as under: "7. The learned Singte Judge in his judgment dated 21.9.1998 he!d that there was no ground for discriminating bebween bwo sets of employees who are daily wagers, namely (1) ttie original emplo^es of the Electridty Btard, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees <rf the EIesrtricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Etectricity Board. This view of ths leamed singte Judge was upheld bythe Diwsion Bench ofthe High Court. 17...... We have to read Uma Devi's ease (supra) in conformity witti Articte 14 of the ConsBuCon, and we cannot read it in a manner which wiil make it in conflict with Article 14. The Constitution is ttie supreme law ofthe land, and anyjudgment, not even ofthe Supreme Court, can violate the Constitutlon." 9) In the matter of Indian Drugs & Pharmaeeuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Phannaceuticals Ltd, ths Supreme Court obseived as under: "34. Thus, it is well settled that there is no right vested in any daily-wagers to seek r^utarization. Regularization can only be done in accordance wfth the rules and not dehors the rules in E. Ramakrishnan v. Stote of Kerh this Court hetd that there can b®no regularization dehora the rules. The same view was taken in IVshofe (Or.) v. State of Maharadiha, Union afiiKSa v. Bishamber Dutt. The direction issued by the Services Triburat for regularizing the service of persons who had not been appointed on regular basis in accordance wth the rules was set aside although the petiBoner had been working regulariy for a long time. 35. In SurinderSingh Jamwal (Dr.) v. Stote af JW. it was held that ad hoc appointment does not give any right for regularization as regularization is govemed by the statutory rules." °(2007)Affi.SCW^®04 7(2007)1SCC408 e^@^r^^ ;"- ^.BSS^, '^\w ''i,-.--'' '3 •^ 10) In the matter of State (rf U.P. and others Vs. Desh Raj°,the Supreme Court observed as under: "7. Whatever may be the import and purport of such regularization mles, in view ofthe recent Constftution Bench decision of this Court in Secy., Stofe cf Kamataka Vs. Umadew, 'A is now well settted that the appointments, if made in violation of the constitutional scheme of equatity as enshrined under Artcle 14 aml 16 of the Constitution of India, would be rsndered illegal and, thus, void ab OT(SO. No reguiarizatien mles, therefore, could have been made by the State of Uttar- Pradesh in derogation of the statuteiry or a constitutional scheme. 11) Further, in the matter of Secretary, State of Kamateka & Others v. Uma Devi and others8, a Constttution Bench of the Supreme Court with rsgard to fte regutarization, permanence, absorption, continuance of temporary, confrachjal, casual, daily wager or adhoe empto^es , appointed/recruHied and continued for long in ^iblic employment, oteerved as under: "43. Thus, it is clear that the adherence to Uie ruto of equality in public employment is a basic fsature of our constitutian and since the rute of law is th®core of our Constitution, a court woutel certainly be disabled firom passing an order uphokiing a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overiooking of the need to comply wift the requiremeite of Article 14 read witti Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for pubiic employment, this cwirt while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appoinbnent is in terms of the retevant rulss and after a proper competition among qualified persons, thesame would not confer any right on the appointee......" 44. The concept of "equal pay for equal woik" is differerrt from the concept of conferring permanency qn those who have been appointed on adhoc basis, temporary basis, or based on no process of setection as envisaged by the rutes. This Court has in various decisions appBed the principle of equal pay for equal work and has laid down the parametera fer the applicaftion of that principte. The decisions are rested on tt>e concept of equality enshrined in our Constitution in ffte light <rf the direcBve prtncipies in that behalf. But the acceptance of that principle eannot lead to a position where the court could direct that appointments made without fotlowing the due 8(2007){SCC257 92006(4)SCC1 procedure estabtished by law, be deemed permanent or issue directions to to'eat diem as permanent. Doing so, woutd be negation of the principle of equality of opportunity. The power to make an order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before ttiis Court, would not normaily be used for giving the ge-by to th& procedure established by law in the matter <rf public employment......" 12) Applying the well settled princifries af law as stated above to the facte of the case, the peBtion has no merit in the case as there is no basis todirect the respondents to regularize the petitioner with effect from 19-1-1M8, with consequential benefits. 13) Accordingly, the petition is dismisssd summarily. f SatishK.Agnihotri Judge