^ •?. ^••' .<p 'S^Wvt j-:rg- ^^y'~ ^^' ..V <,^ m THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G^ W. P. (S}No^yS^ /2006 PETITIONER ^~» s.. RESPONDENTS o^f ,9^ ^/C o- ^:; Govind Ram Patel S/o Shri Chhedi Lal R/o Badi Koni, Bu'kona Magra Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS •^l. State of Chhattisgarh Through :- Secretary, Department ofPubUc Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^-2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works, Department Raipur (C.G.) ^3. Superintending Engmeer, Public Works, Department Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer, Public Works, Department Division No. 1 BUaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OILTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ V, HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE CHHATTIS6ARH: BILASPUR Sir^ie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihatri. J. W. P. (S)No. 5511 of2Q06 Petitioner ; Govmd Ram Patel Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & 0-Hiers Shri 5.P. Kale, counse! for the petjtioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panet Lawyer for the respondents/State. ith (10"' Oetober. 2006) 1. Leamed counsel for the pstitioner submits that the pstitioner was appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and at present he is working as Labour (class-IV employee) in the respondents-department as daily wager. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief in terms of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of SecrstCB-y. State of Kamataka ond Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others and Minerat Exploration Corporation Employses' Union v. < Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited & Aw. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and Othsrs (supra), in para 53 has he!d as under; "53. ...........The question of regularizdtion of the services of such emptoyees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles sett-led by this Court in the cesses abovereferred to ond in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments ond their instrunientalities E-"t~-;:'-"^ should take s'teps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irr-egutarty appointed, who hoive worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and shoutd further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fitl those vacant sanctionedposts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now eirsployed. Jhe process must be set in motion within six monl+is from this date. We also cbrify that regubrization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there shoutd be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regubrising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." The Supreme Court- in the case of rtinsrol Exploration Corporation Employees' Ifriion (aipra) in para 17 hdS he!d as under :- 17. It is seen from the above paragraph that this Court directed -t+ie Union of India, the S'tate Govemments and their instrumentalities to reguhrize as a one-time measure, the services of ffljch irregutariy appointed workman, who haye worked for ten years or more in duly sonctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunats cnd should further ensure that reguhr recruitments are undertaking to fitl those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the partjes, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the ease, the request made by learned counsel fo" the petitioner is just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed to make a detaited representation, raising alf his grievances annexing a copy of ihe writ petition and its annexures to the concerned authority within a period of ten days from today and the concerned authority is directed to decide the representcxtion within one mon-th from the date of its receipt after considering the points raised by the petitioner, in an objective manner, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 6. With the directions aforesaid, the petition stands diqiosed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish KAgnihotri Judge Bilblu 1{(2006)4S<:C1) 2{JTZ006(75SC15i}