."•.•^'•w-^ dP c^ •i^^ IN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. c53'?3 /2Q09 PETITIONER /y -'^ frj ^y/ v/yy' ^cw/ ^7 //y w i a. i S.R.^srfa S »1 ^J^^I 1. Sushil Kumar Kamalsen, S/o Shri Ram Kamalsen, aged 43 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Suryavansi, working as P.T.5 presentty posted at Sovemment Ayruvedic Hospital, Bilaspur', R/o Village- Semri, Tahsil and Distnct- Bilaspur (C.6.) ^^ 2"Ganga Ram Yadav, S/o Bhag Bali Yadav, aged 29 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Yadav, working as P.T.S presently posted at Government Ayruvedic Hospital, Katha Koni, R/o Village- Katha Koni, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) 3. Hathi Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Kares Yadav, aged 58 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Yadav, working as P.T.S presently posted at ^ Sovernment Ayruvedic Hospital, Semersal, R/o Village- Semersal, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Bilaspur (c.e.) 4. Chheddi Lal, S/o Shri Sant Ram, aged 43 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Kolam, working as P.T.S presently posted at &overnment Ayruvedic Hospital, Dindori, R/o Village- Dindori, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Ram Bags Bharti, S/o Shri Chheddi Lal Bharti, aged 48 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Suryavansi, working as P.T.S presently posted at Sovemment Ayruvedic Hospital. Nagoi, R/o Village- Nagoi, Tahsil and .District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Laxman Ram Bareth, 5/o Shri Bahoran Bareth, aged 36 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Washerman, working as SSif '.: <; /' w^ \ '...? Y / ^ J \ 'y;':.1''- ~- /1:»." /y "\ "-':f.s~^: •spy ,'f'' US Ti-.a*3'.^ P.T.S presently posted at Govemment Ayruvedic Hospital, Pandhi, R/o Village- Pandhi, Tahsil- Masturi, Distnct- Bilaspur (C.6.) 7. Gore Lal, S/o Shri 6uni Ram, aged 41 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Washerman, working as P.T.S presently posted at Sovernment Ayruvedic Hospital, Kenda, R/o Village- Kenda, Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8. Sopal Prasad 6ond, S/o Shn' Jham Singh 6ond, aged 47 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- &ond, working as P.T.S presently posted at Sovernment Ayruvedic Hospital, Sakara, R/o Village- Sakara, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 9. Thanu Ram 6ond, S/o Shri Milan Ram, aged 43 years, Occupation- Service, ^&^ Caste- &ond, working as P.T.5 presently posted at &overnment Ayruvedic Hospital, Bodsara, R/o Village- Bodsara, Tahsil- Bilha, Distnct- Bilaspur (C.6.) 10.'' Komal Prasad Jangde, S/o Shri Dharm Das Jangde, aged 43 years, Occupation- Service, Caste- Satnami, working as P.T.S presently posted at Govemment Ayruvedic Hospital, Pejanyia, R/o Village- Pejanyia, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Bilaspur (c.e.) < 11. Baldau Prasad Dadsena, S/o Shri Bodra Ram, aged 34 years, Occupation- Service, Caste-Kalar, working as P.T.S presently .posted at Govemment Ayruvedic Hospital, Kondawa, R/o Village- Kondawa, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Bilaspur (C.6.) Vs -y RESPONDENTS : 1 ^^e-^ State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Ayruvedic and Medical, Manatralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Regional Officer, Ayruvedic, Bilaspur Region, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Labour Officer, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur', Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UN&ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1950 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRtT PETtTION LSLN_0,2975 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Sushil Kumar Kamalsen & Others RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava & Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25th day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the circular dated 5-3-2008 and further promote the petitioners to the higherpostpursuanttothe letterdated 13-11-1995. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners working in the respondent department since a long period i.e. more than 10 years on part time basis, but till date the services of the petitioners has not been regularized in spite of the fact that the work and conduct of the petitioner is foundsatisfactory. Against the said action of the respondent authorities, the petitioners preferred a writ petjtion before this Court being W.P. (S) No.6981 of 2008. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 15-12-2008 (Annexure - P/10) with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioners with regard to their regularization. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representation, which has been rejected by order dated 14-5-2009 (Annexure - P/1) on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to regularization and other services benefits. Thus, this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not appointed in accordance with.the constitutional scheme of employment, as the petitioners were appointed on part time basis. Even the services of the daily wagers could be terminated at any point of time without any notice, and thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra, as the Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions has made clear that the employees appointed on daily wages basis have no right to continue in service or regularization. The appointment itself is de hors'the constitutional scheme of employment. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed on part time basis and not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. The appointment of the petitioners was purely on temporary basis. A temporary, ad hoc employee/daily wager cannot claim regularization, continuance or reinstatement in service on the basis of appointment, which was temporary and not in accordgnce with law and the same was de hors the constitutional scheme of employrrient. (See Secretary, State of Kamataka and Others i/s. Umadevi (3) and Others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs <S Pharmaceuticals Lfd , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others and State of Punjab and Others v. Surjit Singh and Others4}. With regard to regularisation of the employees working on daily wages basis, the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), -observed as under: "Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is ' (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 2007(1)8cc 408 3 (2008) 10SCC1 4 (2009)93cc 514 .^^SByg.®,,. S'S' '""' ^ ^ ?.^.. f- ^^^?^^^y>\ ~" ^i. 'n._^ / -.rff' l^. the core of our Constitution, a court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation ofArticle 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee." 9. The above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court has been reiterated by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Verma & Others v. State of Chhattigarh & Anothei^ and Somendra Pratap Singh v. The State of M.P. & others Against the order passed in Somendra Pratap Singh (supra), the petitioner therein preferred a writ appeal being W.A. (PR) No. 2077 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Division Bench ofthis Court by order dated 29-4-2008 affirming the order passed by'the Single Bench. Thereagainst, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.(C) No. 27190/2008 (Somendra Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ofhers), which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court affirming the view taken by this Court, vide its order dated 23-3-2009. 10. This Court in Sanjay Patil v. State of Chhatfisgarh & Another', while dealing with similar issue observed that "ifthe State Government has regularized some of the daily wagers, not appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, this Court cannot issue a positive direction to legalise the illegal appointment on the ground that certain illegal appointments have been legalized/regularized by the employer. 11. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union oflndia, observed as under: 5 WP (S) No. 1743 of 2009 decided on 28-4-2009 6 W.P.(S) No. 1347 of 2005 decided on 26-2-2008 7 WP (S) No.5845 of 2009 decided on 9-10-2009 8 (2007) 4 SCC 54 '•% ^ "34. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularised. The Court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is iltegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity." 12. Further, in State of Punjab & another v. Surjit Singh & Others , the Supreme Court reaffirmed the above ratio in the following terms: "39. We would, however, before parting make an observation that the submission of: the learned counsel that only because some juniors have got the benefit, the same by itself cannot be a ground for extending the same benefit to the respondents herein. It is now well known that the equality clause contained in Article 14 should be invoked only where the parties are similarly situated and where orders passed in their favour are legal and not illegal. It has a positive concept." 13. In view of foregoing, for the reasons stated hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case wherein the petitioners were appointed purely on part time/temporary basis, they are not entitled to any relief. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2009)93cc 514