VISHNU SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dtd. 19/5/2014 (Annexure P/1), whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services has been rejected by Respondent No.3 on the ground that the appointment of the petitioners was illegal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were regularly working in the office of Respondent No.3 under Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 1989-90 on the sanctioned post and possessed the prescribed qualification according to their respective post, they were regularly working in the different posts. The petitioners are providing services from their respective date of joining without any break and they are getting salary as per Collector rate. Their services were also utilized in election and other emergency duty of the Respondent No. 1 as per the requirement. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh, in compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 issued circular (Annexure P/2) relating to the regularization of daily wages, temporary and contractual appointment, who were regularly working prior to 1988 or between 1/1/1989 to 31/12/1997. However, inspite of the circular issued by State of Chhattisgarh, the respondents did not initiated any proceeding to regularize the services of the petitioners and being inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioners moved representation (Annexure P/3) through their Union on 11/2/2009.

(3.) According to the petitioner, when the General Administrative Department of the State of Chhattisgarh noticed that even after issuance of the circular dtd. 5/2/2008, some Departments have not complied with the direction with regard to regularisation of daily wagers. Thereafter, the Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of C.G. issued another letter on 15/2/2011 (Annexure P/4), in which the specific direction was given to ensure the regularization of daily wager employee expeditiously. According to the petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 and 3 adopting pick and choose procedure did not regularised the services of the petitioner and had regularized the junior persons as well as the persons who were not having requisite qualifications. When the claim of the petitioners for regularisation was not considered, they filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking relief for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, wherein this Hon'ble Court passed an order (Annexure P/6) giving liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representation before the competent authority and the time was fixed to decide the same by the authority concerned. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their representations (Annexure P/7) before the competent authority, but the same was not deiced within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the contempt proceeding was initiated by the petitioners. In the contempt proceeding, the former competent authorities did not appear before the Hon'ble Court inspite of service of the notice then bailable warrant was issued and in that proceeding Mr. N.K. Nigam, Registrar, was the Respondent No. 2, The Respondent No. 2 after issuance of the bailable warrant appeared before this Hon'ble Court and filed reply contending that the petitioners were working under Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University. As such, the order was required to be complied with by the Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University and Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University was not impleaded as necessary party and the contempt proceeding was withdrawn on 30/8/2013. Thereafter, the petitioners filed writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1475/2014 before this Hon'ble Court seeking relief for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners in service as they are working regularly since 1989-90, wherein vide order dtd. 31/3/2014 (Annexure P/9), this Hon'ble Court disposed off the petition with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation before the respondents and the outer limit of 6 months was fixed to pass appropriate order regarding regularization of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted representation but the respondent authorities did not comply with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court within the fix period of 6 months, thereafter the contempt proceeding was filed. After receiving of the notice, the respondent i.e. Mr. N.K. Nigam filed reply of the contempt petition, in which he filed the copy of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. Hence, this petition seeking following reliefs: