Allowed

Narantak Ram Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2014WPS/3031/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted a Writ Petition regarding regularization claims of daily wage employees. The court found the petitioners prima facie eligible under the March 5, 2008 circular and directed the State to consider their regularization application in accordance with the said circular and Supreme Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' claim for regularization strictly in accordance with circular dated 5.3.2008 and judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

Narantak Ram Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

?-;

C./2 /^Z)

IN THE HON'BLE_HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR

¶5

¶6

W.P. (S) No. ^o3^ / 2014

¶7

Narantak Ram Sahu S/o Ghasiya Ram Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o Kumhalori, P.S. and Tahsil District Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - RajnEindgaon (C.G.)

¶8

: 1.

¶9

PETITIONERS

¶10

..(3.^-l:";-^fe'H^ Rajnandgaon, p.R.No. ..--^••"[^(43^^"^:T"1 Rajnandgaon, presentedblSh"^^^^..^.... daied..———"" at circuit

¶11

¶12

Shyam Singh Patel S/o Manrakhan Patel, aged about 44 R/o village Diwanbheri, years, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶13

J-"

¶14

¶15

Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Manglu Ram Yadav, aged about 46 years, R/o village Devri, Tahsil Dondi Lohara, District - Balod, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶16

¶17

Ganeshiya Bai W/o Natthu Lal Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o Gouri Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil - and District Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶18

¶19

¶20

Mathura Bai W/o Tikam Yadav, aged about 46 years, R/o Gouri Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District - Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at ~ circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶21

¶22

Vijay Kumar S/o Ramnath Sahu, aged about 42 years, R/o Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Ward No. 1, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶23

Usha Bai W/o Mahendra Rajak, aged about 46 years, R/o Durga Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District - Rajnandgoan, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

•?••'••

-. . :

Harihar Prasad S/o Poshak Ram Sahu, aged about 46 years, R/o Kotra Sarar, Post Junglepur, P.S. Lalbagh, Tahsil and District - Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶28

¶29

¶30

Ankalu Ram S/o Kriparam Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o Diwanbheri, Tahsil Dongargaon,

¶31

KS.

¶32

District - Rajnandgaon, posted as a labour at cu-cuit house Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶33

Madhur Kumar S/o Basudeo Sonkar, aged about 33 years, R/o Sonarpara,' at present Nandai Chowk, sonkarpara, Near Shitla Mandir, Ward No. 42, Nandai, District Rgjnandgaon, posted as a 1 laboyr at circuit house Rajnandgaon, District

Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary - Department of P.W.D. Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶38

•A <

¶39

ExecutiveEngineer,

¶40

' Department of P.W.D., s ^ ^ - Bhavan 85 Sadak,. . Rajnandgaon. District - Rajneindgaon (C.G.).

¶41

¶42

Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Department, '; Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

¶43

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶44

^ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (Sl:As per the cause title.

¶45

¶46

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶47

WP(S)No.3Q31 of 2014

¶48

PETITIONERS

¶49

Narantak Ram Sahu & others

¶50

-Versus-

¶51

RESPONDENTS:

¶52

State ofChhattisgarh &others

¶53

Present

¶54

Shri BP Singh, counsel for the petitioners.

¶55

Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State on advance

¶56

copy.

¶57

Sinale Benchiilon'bl^Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J.

¶58

ORALORDER '

¶59

(9-7-2014)

¶60

The grievance of the petitioners arises on account of non-consideration of theii; application for regularization as per policy of regularization dated 5.3.2008 promulgated by the State Government to consider the eligibility of daily wage employees for regularization as a one time measure in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others {(2006) 4 SCC 1}.

¶61

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are covered by circular dated 5.3.2008 as they were appointed as daily wage employee within the period prescribed in the circular. He further submits that at one point of time, their services were terminated in the year 1999 against which they approached the Labour Court and termination has been set aside under an award of reinstatement. Further submission is that in similar cases, employees have been reinstated uhderf . an award and even in cases where litigations are pending in the Court, cases of regularization have been considered and those who were found it upon screening, have been regularized.

¶62

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and also going through the documents placed on record, the claim does not appear to be frivolous. The petitioners have been'working since long and as per circular dated 5.3.2008, they seem to be prima facie covered by the same circular as far as the date of appointment as dailywage employee is concerned. Moreover, they have been reinstated as per the award of the Labour Court. The State has issued circular dated 5.3.2008 to

¶63

.V . ,^.--^-^-w.;
s, 1?-.^
X,. %k^?/

¶64

complete the process of regularization. In view of Annexure-P/3 and Annexure-P/4 that number of employees whose cases are pending are considered for regularization and under an award, they have been reinstated, it would be expedient to direct respondents to consider the petitioners'^{claimforregularizationstrictlyinaccordancewithcirculardated} 5.3.2008 and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi

¶65

(Supra).

¶66

Barve

¶67

The writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶68

J Sd/'/Mistoa Judge

Narantak Ram Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narantak Ram Sahu and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen U. Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rupesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Girja Shanker Mahalwar Vs State Govt.of C.G. and Others

Dr. Arunima Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Surendra Kumar Soni and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others