VIRENDRA DAS MANIKPURI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners, apprehending their removal from service pursuant to the memo dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Respondent No. 1. have filed this petition seeking cancellation/modification of the memo dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P/l) and further, to direct the Respondent State to consider the case of the Petitioners individually, if fresh recruitment drive for regular appointment are made.

(2.) At the very outset, learned Counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that facts and question of law involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Dhaniram and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. W.P. (S) No. 6798/2010, decided on 20-1-2011 and other connected matters wherein, this Court, after relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and Ors. v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. A1R 2010 SC 2587, has held that the action of the Respondent-Corporations pursuant to the memo dated 23.09.2010 for removal of daily wagers without proper scrutiny as per the memo dated 05.03.2008 was bad and the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) The decision of the Supreme Court in Satya Prakash and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2010 4 SCC 179 was not brought into the notice of the Court when Dhaniram and Ors.1 and other connected matters, were considered. In Satya Prakash and Ors.4, the facts involved therein are different. In the said case, a writ petition was filed by the employees working on daily wages, seeking a direction to the State authorities to regularize their services in the light of para 53 of the Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (3) and Others2. The Supreme Court observed that the employees appointed illegally dehors the constitutional scheme of employment may not be considered for regularization. However, the other employees whose appointment is irregular, may be considered for regularization. Thus, the case of Satya Prakash and Ors., 2010 4 SCC 179 is distinguishable on the facts.