SUSHIL KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief (S) :-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 1/7/1996, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Driver on daily wages and since then he has been discharging his duty with utmost satisfaction. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing and without any notice, all of a sudden, by oral order terminated the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation (Annexure P/1) before the respondent authorities for supply of copy of removal order, however, the same has not been provided to him and on 3/9/2002, an order (Annexure P/2) was passed re-instating the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities for his regularisation and in pursuance of the same, the respondent authorities prepared information in 22 column in prescribed format (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, when nothing substantial was done by the respondent authorities, the petitioner again moved a representation (Annexure P/4) in this regard and in pursuance of the representation, final decision was taken by the Department vide order dtd. 5/2/2016 (Annexure P/5) dismissing the claim of the petition for regularisation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory for the reason that the case of other employees who are at the same footing has already been considered by the Department, as such, the petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the order was passed that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions as mentioned in circular dtd. 5/3/2008 (Annexure P/6). The claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of his service as daily wager in the Department, however, the case of similarly placed employees was considered and they were regularised on the basis of same recommendations but the petitioner has been denied regularisation, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Raman Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2023 LawSuit (SC) 815 and Ravi Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2018 LawSuit (SC) 766.