Dismissed

C.G.Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Oct 2013WP/4283/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by an employee Union seeking regularization of daily wage sweepers. The court held that since the petition was not filed by individual employees with specific details, and because a similar petition was previously dismissed, the petition was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Direction to regularize services of daily wage employees and provide salary at par with regular employees was denied; Writ Petition dismissed.

C.G.Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

«?8affi': ?" !nE&S?''BJ?

¶2

C-{~'1'V-9^.—

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION JsfNO. ^t ^»s /20Q6

¶4

^
v@
^r^.

¶5

/ PETITIONER Chhattisgarh KarmGhari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur Through-Its President Om Prakash Gangota-i, aged about 50 years, S/o Bl^olTUTiui-fi&^-^, R/o Dayalband, Bilaspur [C'.G.]

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh ^"
Through- Secretary,
Township Administration and
Development Department, D.K.S.
Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.j.

¶8

RESPONDENTS 1] State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh ^"
Through- Secretary,
Township Administration and
/'L/
Development Department, D.K.S.
Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.j.
^..^7
^f/ / 2] Municipal Corporation Bilaspur,
.^ /r£^y'
Through- Commissioner,
' o'y<^^
A? Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur
^
.<^-
o?-''^ /
<"t'y
3] Assistant Labour Commissioner,
BUaspur [C.G.].
WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶9

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

WP No.4283 of 2006

¶12

PETITIONER

¶13

Chhattisgarh Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union, Bilaspur

¶14

-Versus-

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶17

Present

¶18

Ms. Ruma Roy, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶19

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar NIishra. J.

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

(4-10-2013)

¶22

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Union seeking direction to regularize the services of employees on vacant posts of Sweepers who are working on daily wages with a further direction to provide salary and allowances to them at par with regular employees. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to fill up the sanctioned posts of sanitary workers as per the recommendations.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that similar writ petition viz. W.P. No.3967/1993 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2006. Therefore, the present petition also deserves to be

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

The writ petition has been filed by the employee jjnion and not by any individual daily wage employee. Particulars of each of the members of the petitioner union who are working as daily wage Sweepers/Sanitary Assistants in the Municipal Corporation have not been mentioned in the writ petition.

¶26

In the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para53 thus:-

¶27

"53..............The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled .by this Court in the cases aboverefered to and in the light of this judgment. In that

¶28

I context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumehtalities should take steps to'T'egularize as a one-time

¶29

measure, the services of sych irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

¶30

In view of the above, the reliefs claimed for in the writ petition cannot be granted and moreover when similar petition filed by the other employees of the same Municipal Corporation has already been dismissed in W.P. No.3967/1993.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶32

However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition would not come

¶33

in the way of any individual employee who is otherwise entitled to claim

¶34

regularization in terms of extant Government circulars in this regard.

¶35

Barve

¶36

Sd//prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶37

/ (*•

C.G.Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baijnath Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Karan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Ayodhya Bai Vs the Executive Dir.Fin.C.G.Po.Ho.and Ors.

Ganga Prasad Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Manoj Tamboli And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shivram Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.