SANDEEP VERMA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing/set aside the impugned order dtd. 3/9/2012 (Annexure- P/1, P/2 and P/3) and for direction to the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners in pursuance of circular dtd. 5/3/2008 (Annexure-P/11) from the date when the other employees who have been appointed along with the petitioners, have been regularized by the respondents vide order dtd. 28/8/2008.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners vide order dtd. 9/5/1997 along with three other persons were appointed as 'Sanitary Inspector' in the establishment of respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) on an honorarium basis. The appointment of the petitioners was on sanctioned and vacant post of Sanitary Inspector. On 8/2/1997 respondent No. 2 passed a resolution to pay the petitioner's salary as a 'daily wager' and on the basis of the said resolution, an order was passed to appoint the petitioners as daily wage employees for 89 days from the year 1988. The petitioners continued to work on the said post under different orders passed during this period without there being any interruption in the service. On 5/3/2008 the State Government issued a circular to implement the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 52 and 53 of the judgment of "Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Other" reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. On the basis of the said circular respondent No. 2 vide order dtd. 28/8/2008 regularized the services of two persons who were appointed along with the petitioners. The petitioners made several representations to respondent No. 2 but till date, respondent No. 2 has not regularized the services of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 2316/2011 and the said writ petition has been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance with the policy of the regularization dtd. 5/3/2008 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Other reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. But the respondent authority rejected the representations of the petitioners for regularization. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned orders suffer from malice in law as only in order to wriggle out from the contempt proceedings this order has been passed. He next submits that the impugned orders suffer from discrimination as two persons who have been appointed with the petitioners have been regularized by the respondents vide order dtd. 28/8/2008. The denial of benefits to petitioners on the basis of a circular dtd. 5/3/2008 is a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in part-III of the constitution of India. He also submits that the respondents failed to see that the petitioners were fully eligible for regularization on the post of Sanitary Inspector as per the circular dtd. 5/3/2008. As per set-up of the respondent No. 2, there are 25 vacant posts of Junior Sanitary Inspectors and 10 posts of Senior Sanitary Inspectors and therefore respondent No. 2 should have regularized the services of the petitioners also. He lastly submits that the conduct of the respondents is violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights granted under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corpn., Jabalpur vs. Om Prakash Dubey, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 373.