Raoiesh Kuraar Kannoje v. State of Madhya Pradesh( now Chhattisgarh)

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (St No. 2974 of2005 Petitioner Raoiesh Kuraar Kannoje Respondents Versus State of Madhya Pradesh( now Chhattisgarh) & aiiofher Writ Petition (S) No. 3039 of2005 Petitloner Ramakant Tiwari Respondents Versus State of Madhya Pradesh( now Chhattisgarh) & aaofher '^\ Writ Petition (S\ No. 3066 of2005 Petitioner Ashok Kuixiar Namdeo Respondeuts Versus State of Madhya Pradesh( now Chhattisgarh) & aaother . (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for fbe petitloners. Shn M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for flie respondents. ORDBR(Orall (Passed on this 3rd'day ofDecember, 2009) Heard, The aforementioned fhree petitions uxvolve coTnmon question of facts aad law, asto whether, the petitioners, who were appointed on daily wages prior to 31.12. 1988 are eutitled for regularizatlon oftiieu' ser^ices. Therefore tliese petitions i.e. W.P.(S) Nos. 2974, 3039 aad 3066 of 2005 are beiag disposed of by fhis common order. S. InitiaUy, the petitiouers had filed Ongmal Applications before fhe State Administt'ative Tribuual. After dissolution of the Tribunal fhese petltloas have beeu transferred to this Court aiid renumbercd as Writ Petition (S) Nos. 2974/2005, 3039/2005 aad 3066/2005.

3. The petitloner (Raraesh Kiimar Kaauoje) ia W.P.(S) No. 2974/2005 was appointed on 21.10.1980 as Timekeeper, on daUy wages, ia fhe office of the Water Resources Sub-Division, Dongargarh. Accordtag to fhe petitioner, at present noiiienclature of the post of Timekeeper has been chaaged as Spot Assistaat ( ^afff VWH3 }.

4. The petitioner (Ramakant Tiwari) in W.P.(S) No. 3039/2005 was \^_- appoiated on 20.10.1980 as Timekeeper/Spot Assistant ( ^sfcT tfSf^f^ ), on daUy wages, in fhe ofiSce of the Water Resources Deparfcaient, Chuikhadan, Rajnaadgaon.

5. The petitioner (Ashok Kiunar Namdeo) in W.P.(S) No. 3066/2005 was appoiated on 11.5.1979 as Timekeeper/Spot Assistant ( ^fef WSTVW ], on daily wages, ia tihie office of fhe Water Resources Deparfcment, Chulkhadan, Rajnandgaon.

6. Leanied comisel appearmg for fhe petitioners submits that fhe petitioners were appoiated on daUy wages basis agaiast fhe clear aiid vacant posts aad they are contmuously workmg ia fhe departaient siace last about 25 years. In view of the circular dated 15th October, 1997 (Aiinexure A/2) the petitioners, beiag appoiated prior to 31.12.1988, are entiUed to regulanzation from the date of fheir initial appoiatment. Similarly situated persons have been graa.ted fhe benefit of reguladzation ia service tiierefore fhe respondeuts may be directed to regularize fhe services of the petitioners from. the date of fheir initiaT appointment with all consequential benefits.

7. Haviag heard learaed counsel appearing for the petitioners and havmg perused the dociimeuts appended fhereto, it is evident fhat the engagenient of flie petitioners was purely on tempomiy ^0 basis on daily wages. The^petitioners were n^ver appoiiited ta accordaace withi the constitutional scheme ofemploymentThus, tib-e petitioners have no legal right to reguladzation of fheir services. (See State of Karaataka aa.d others v, Umadevl (3) aad others1 S& Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanaad aud others2 )

8. The Supreme Court ia Ashok Kiimaar Soakar Vs. Uttioa af ladia aad others3 observed as under: "34. It is uot a case where appomtnient was irregular. If an appomtoaient is uregular, fhe same caa be reguladzed. The court may not take serilous note of aa UTegularity wifhia the meanmg of fh-e provisions of fhe Act. But if an appointaient is it is non est ia. fhe eye of law, which renders fhe lUegal, appomtoxent to be a xuiUity"

9. Sq far as grant of direction to the respondent-aufhonties to appoiat fhe petitioners on permaaent basis in accordaace wifh para 53 of Umadevi (supra) is concenied, the same caanot be granted, as the direction was given as one time nieasure to be taken withm sm monfhs from the date of pronouncement offhe said judgment i.e. April 10, 2006. Even ofherwise, irregular appomtment, illegal appomtaieut, have been regulanzed wifhia fhe said period. In fhe case on haad, fhe appoiatment of fhe petitioners was not irregular but illegal and as such, no direction caa be graated to fhe respondents to regularize the petitioners. In Umadevi (supra), the Supreme Court obseryed as under: "53....... In that context, Govemments aad fheir mstrumentalities should take steps to the Union of India, fhe State 1(2006)4SCC1 2 3