^s^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHAmSGARH W.P. N0./e^^-/2005 PETITIONER / ^ V- 7 ^a^^ c^loh" >* '"•^•^^S2€^B-rf>"~ ^..'-(g^^-- ^y t^'"Y RteSPONDENTS 1. Kadar Khan, S/o. Shri Mohammad Mobin Khan, aged about 22 years, ^ 2. Kripa Shankar^ S/o. Shri Goapi Ram, aged about 27 years^ / 3. Mikhail Toppo, S/o. Banjamin Toppo, aged about 32 years, /4. Ajay Pandey, S/o. Shri Brijendra Pandey, aged about 27 years, / 5. Jogendra Mehta, S/o. Shri Sita Ram Gupta/ aged about 25 years, 6. Dev Kumar, S/o. ShriShadhu Ram, aged about 25 years, All are R/o. Viltage Balrampur^ District Surguja, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Local Self government, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 2. The Cotlector, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ^3. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat BaJrampur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ^^ L. » L..^ ^^ ^4. The President, Nagar Panchayat, Balrampur, Djstrict Surguja, . Chhattisgarh WRIT PFTITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRITPETITIONNo. 1944 of 2005 : Kadar Khan & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 OfThe Constitution Oflndia SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri J.P.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 & 2. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 & 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 22nd day of April, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 02.05.2005 (Annexure P/l) whereby the ser^ices of the petitioners, who were appointed on contract basis pursuant to the resolution passed on 31.03.2005 in the meeting of President-in-Council, Nagar Panchayat, Balrampur, and the resolution passed by the Council on 30.04.2005, were disengaged. In the pleadings, it is stated that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the resolution passed by the respondent No. 3 on 20.06.2003, 04.10.2003 and 07.02.2004. On pemsal ofthe records, there is nothing to indicate asto what was the nature of appointment. However, on reading of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a particularjob. The respondent No. 3 in its resolution dated 31.03.2005 (Annexure R-3-4/1), after having found that there was no work available to the petitioners, their ser^ices were disengaged. The sole contention of leamed counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners ought to have been afforded an opportunity ofhearing before their sers^ices were disengaged. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 and 4 submits that the engagement of the petitioners •J/ .^y was for a particularjob on contract wages basis. When the saidjob was over, the services of the petitioners were disengaged and as such, no show cause notice was necessary as the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme ofemployment. 5. On consideration ofthe submissions advanced by leamed counsel for the parties, pemsing pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that the appointment ofthe petitioners was not on any regular post in accordance with law or in consonance with the provisions ofthe constitutional scheme. The petitioners were appointed for a particular purpose and after completion of the work, their ser^ices were disengaged. It is a trite law that in such an event, the petitioners are not entitled to any protection as enshrined in Article 31 1 ofthe Constitution oflndia by affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners. 6. Even otherwise, it is well settled that a temporary., ad hoc, employee/daily wager or contract appointee cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in ser^ice on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordance with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employment. (See Secretary, State ofKarnataka and Othersvs. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Official Liquidator v. Dayanand-and others3, State ofPunjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4 and State ofKarnataka and Others v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and Others). 7. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand wherein the petitioners have failed to establish that their appointment was in accordance with the. constitutional scheme of employment, no reliefas prayed for by the petitioners can be granted. 8. Resultantly, the petition being devoid ofmerit, is accordingly dismissed. 9. No order asto costs. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007 (1) SCC 408 3 (2008) 10 SCC 1 4 (2009)98cc 514 5 (2010) 3 SCC 115 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge