Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J.
Uday Maan Ram, S/o Shri Sampat Ram - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 6626 of 2017, WPS No. 6379 of 2018
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Regularization - Daily Wagers - Circular dated 5/3/2008, 24.11.2011 - The court discussed the regularization of services of the petitioners in light of circulars of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 and 24.11.2011. The court also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the order dated 16.5.2017 of Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.1703/2015 in the matter of Tukaram Vs. State of CG and others, and other connected writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were working as Caretaker and Chowkidar in the respondents department on daily wages against the regular sanctioned post since May, 1994 and September, 1992 respectively. Their services were discontinued in the year 2000 but were reinstated later. They filed writ petitions for regularization of their services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were working as daily wagers for a considerable period of time and their services deserved to be regularized in light of the circular dated 5.3.2008 and the decision in the matter of Tukaram. The impugned orders rejecting their representations were set aside and the respondent authorities were directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issue was the regularization of the petitioners' services and the rejection of their representations by the respondent authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' services deserved to be regularized in light of the circular dated 5.3.2008 and the decision in the matter of Tukaram.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondent authorities were directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits.
ORDER :
Since the issue involved in both these petitions is same, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. WPS No.6626/2017 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure P/14) whereby his application for regularization of his services has been rejected and in WPS No.6379/2018 the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.7.2018 (Annexure P/15) whereby his application for regularization of his services has been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioners Uday Maan Ram and Gabriyal Ram Lakda were working as Caretaker and Chowkidar in the respondents department on daily wages against the regular sanctioned post since May, 1994 and September, 1992 respectively. Though in the year 2000 their services were discontinued, however, subsequently they were reinstated on the ground that discontinuation of their services was by mistake. One Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta whose services were also discontinued along with the petitioners, was also reinstated by the respondents vide order dated 6.12.2005 and 3.5.2006 but the department did not give him joining and continued with the case filed before this Court. Vide order dated 20.4.2010 this Court directed the learned Labour Court to decide the case of Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta on merits and ultimately the Labour Court passed order of reinstatement in his favour and vide order dated 24.2.2012 his services were regularized on the post. Thereafter, similar situated employees approached this Court and after interference by this Court, their services were regularized.
The petitioners also filed writ petitions (WPS No.3409/15-Uday Maan Ram Vs. State of CG and others, and WPS No.849/2016- Gabriyal Ram Vs. State of CG and others) and vide order dated 23.11.2015 and 21.8.2017 respectively this Court directed respondent No.2 to decide their cases within a period of three months from the date of receipt of their representations. When their cases were not decided within the given time frame, they filed contempt cases and only thereafter, their representations were rejected by the respondent authorities. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quashed/set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure P/14) passed by respondent no.2.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Caretaker from the date when similar situated employees have been regularized with all consequential benefits as have been granted to similarly situated employees.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of circular dated 05/03/2008 and judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working, till the case of the petitioner is considered.
10.6 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the cost of this petition.
10.7 Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit may also be awarded.”
WPS No.6379/2018
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quashed/set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P/15) passed by respondent no.2 and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Chowkidar from the date when similar situated employees have been regularized with all consequential benefits as have been granted to similarly situated employees.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to cons
The court ruled that past services of an employee cannot be disregarded for regularization if they meet the criteria set by government circulars and Supreme Court directives.
Daily wage employees who meet the eligibility criteria under the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001, are entitled to be considered for regularizat....
Policy for regularization must honor prior engagements if criteria are met, despite subsequent changes in policy restricting claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reinstated daily wagers are eligible for regularization in accordance with the circular dated 5.3.2008, and the respondent authorities must de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regularisation of service could only be from the date of the petitioners' appointment in regular service i.e., 03.10.2012, and not from th....
The court established that employees cannot claim regularization unless they are working against sanctioned posts, as per the Jharkhand Regularization Rules of 2015 and 2019.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
