DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is working as Sub Engineer with Nagar Panchayat, Devkar District Durg, has filed this writ petition with following relief :-

(2.) Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as Daily Wage Graduate Engineer on 19/1/1991 with Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai, District Durg (for short "SADA"), now Municipal Corporation, Bhilai District Durg. Prior to appointment of petitioner, State Government issued a circular dtd. 19/1/1990 for regularization of service of Daily Wager Diploma and Degree Holder Engineers with all Departments of State Government. In pursuance to the said circular, respondent No.3 (earlier "SADA") issued an order of regularization of Sub Engineers (Daily Wager) on regular post of Sub Engineers vide order dtd. 15/11/1996. Petitioner could not be regularized on the post of Sub Engineer on the ground that petitioner was a Degree Holder. He was assured that he will also be considered for regularization at later point of time and therefore, petitioner continued working as Daily Wage Graduate Engineer. Respondent No.3 vide letters dtd. 6/7/1999, 22/5/2001 and others subsequent letters have made recommendation to Chief Secretary Urban Administration and Development Department, for regularization of Graduate Engineers working with Municipal Corporation, on the post of Assistant Engineer, in which, name of petitioner finds place at Sl.No.4. He also pointed out that as on the date of making recommendation, only two posts of Assistant Engineer were vacant, it was recommended to regularize Daily Wage Graduate Engineer working with Municipal Corporation, Bhilai to other Municipal Corporations or Municipalities, but said recommendation could not be considered by the State Government at that relevant point of time. Subsequently, by way of Annexure P/5, petitioner got appointed on the post of Sub Engineer with Office of Nagar Panchayat, Devkar, District Durg vide Annexure P/5 on 24/9/2005, which is a result of recommendation made by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1. It is the service of petitioner from Daily Wager has been regularized to the post of Sub Engineer, but posting of petitioner has been given at Nagar Panchayat, Devkar, District Durg. He submits that Sub Engineers who are working with respondent No.3 prior to 1996, junior to the petitioner as well as less qualified have been given the benefit of regularization on 15/11/1996, but due to arbitrary action on the part of respondents, junior and less qualified Sub Engineers have now become senior to the petitioner. He also submits that as petitioner has been appointed on the post of Sub Engineer in pursuance to regularization of his service from Daily Wage employee, his seniority is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Graduate Engineer i.e. 19/1/1991. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon"ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers" Association v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (1990) 2SCC 715.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State would submit that submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that appointment of petitioner is by way of regularization of his service is not correct. Referring to Annexure P/5, she submits that from wordings used in order of appointment, it is apparent that petitioner was appointed as a direct appointee in accordance with Chhattisgarh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 (for short "Rules of 1968"). No order is passed by respondent-State Government of regularization of service. Earlier, petitioner was a Daily Wage employee on the post of Graduate Engineer with respondent No.3. Annexure P/5 order is also not issued by respondent No.3, but it has been issued by Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Devkar, which is a separate autonomous body. The employer of petitioner is the Nagar Panchayat, Devkar and not the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. Referring to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1968, she submits that seniority is to be granted to direct appointee from the date of appointment and it is not the case of the petitioner that petitioner has not been granted seniority from the date of issuance of order of appointment dtd. 24/9/2005. As petitioner was appointed as a direct appointee, the relief as sought for by him could not be granted.