Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Paras Ram Yadav on 4 October, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/4
2024:CGHC:39317-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
RAHUL JHA
JHA Date:
2024.10.05
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
14:47:07
+0530
WA No. 639 of 2024
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur Circle, Sirpur
Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Division
Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division
Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Sub Division
Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
Appellants
versus
1 - Paras Ram Yadav S/o Late Nohar Ram Yadav Aged About 61 Years
R/o Village Temari, P.S. Nandgaon, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 2/4 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/10/2024
1. The instant Writ Appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the order dated 16/10/2023 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1656/2013, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed and disposed of with a direction to the appellants to regularize the service of the writ petitioner from the date, he completed 10 years of service.
2. Facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/respondent was appointed on compassionate ground vide order dated 01/12/1998 on account of death of his mother Laguwa Bai who was working as Gangman on daily wages and since then the petitioner is performing his duties. Thereafter, the respondent/writ petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 1656/2013 with the contention that since the writ petitioner was working since 01/12/1998 and he is still being paid salary on collectorate rate, whereas the similarly place persons were regularized by the respondent authorities, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the Department for regularization. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court with a direction to the appellant to regularize the service of the writ petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and he was 3/4 purely engaged on daily wage basis and his deceased mother was not a permanent Gangman, therefore, in this case no constitutional scheme was required to be followed in the engagement of the respondent/writ petitioner and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the counsel for the appellant/State and submits that similarly placed persons were regularized by the State Govt. leaving the petitioner behind, therefore, the Hon'ble Single Bench has rightly appreciated the facts and allowed the writ petition in favour of the writ petitioner.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
6. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner was appointed on 11/11/1998 and have completed about 24 years of service. It is also not in dispute that as per circular dated 05/03/2008, services of daily wage employees were regularized by the State Govt.
7. On going through the impugned order, this Court finds that after considering the fact that the writ petitioner was in service since 11/11/1998; he had completed more than 24 years of service; services of similarly placed employees were regularized by the State Govt.; and the petitioner made several representation to the State Govt. for his regularization, therefore, the learned Single 4/4 Judge disposed of the writ petition with direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the respondent/writ petitioner from the date, he completed 10 years of service. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the aforesaid order.
8. Accordingly, the writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
shoaib/Rahul