Dismissed

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jul 2014WPS/6185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by daily wager employees under Article 226. The Court held that regularization cannot be granted retrospectively and dismissed the petition citing inordinate delay and lack of substance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners were denied regularization or arrears.

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

c^- ^^ ©

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. ^^t^" Of 2010

¶4

PETITIONERS: ^ 1 Alam Das Kosley S/o Patrakhan Kosley (Cook), aged about 47 years, Pre Metric Boys Hostel, Maro. R/o. Village Parsada, Tahsil- Nawagarh,

¶5

Distt.- Durg ( C. G.)

¶6

1. Bhagwat Ram Dhruv S/o Jhaduram Carrier), (Water

¶7

aged about 45 years, Post Metric Anusuchit Jati Balak Chhatravas, Nawagarh. Distt.Durg ( C. G.)

¶8

3 Gokul Ram Thakur S/o Baldu Ram (Water Carrier) , aged about 42 Pre Metric years,

¶9

Adivasi Balak Chhataravas, Arkar. Distt.- Durg ( C. G.)

¶10

^4. Jaichand Thakur S/o Jannu Ram (Water Carrier), aged about 43 years, Pre Metric Adivasi Kanya Chhatravas, Chikhlakasa. TahsilBaloud, Distt.- Durg ( C.G.)

¶11

1. Johar Lal S/o Late Dashrath

¶12

^...^(Water Carrier), aged about

¶13

.^^ 43 years, Pre Metric Adivasi Balak Balak Chhatravas, Piparchhedi. Distt.- Durg

¶14

^y' ( C.G.)

¶15

.6.8urendra Kunar Bandhe S/o Sunder Lal, (Water Carrier), aged about 42 Pre years,

¶16

Metric Adivasi Balak Chhatravas, TahsilBaloud, Distt.- Durg ( C.G.)

¶17

^T.Paras Ram Thakur S/o Bisahu Ram Thakur, (Water Carrier), aged about 40 Years Pre Metric Adivasi Balak Chhatravas, Dallirajhara. Distt.Durg ( C.G.)

¶18

^ S.Heman Kuniar Katlam S/o Hari Singh, fWater Carrier), aged about 43 years,

¶19

Governinent Higher Secondary Shool, Baloda, Distt.- Durg (C.G.)

¶20

^...^-
.^^
^y'
'^
^'':
<<:''
(^

¶21

¶22

		Versus
RESPONDENTS:	.1.	The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Adim Jati , Anusuchit Jati Vikas , Vibhag, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG).
	2.	The Commissioner, Adim Jati, Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG).
WRIT PETITI CO	,3. ON UN NSTIT	The Collector , Durg , Disti-it Durg (CG). DERARTICLE 226 OF UTION OFINDIA 'j II-

¶23

^^ f^'\ i ^Kfe.. 1-1 •a^l 1 ^ ^pfi^^ .•^ ^«^^? ^ ^ ^y

¶24

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.fS^No.6185of2010

¶25

PETITIONERS

¶26

RESPONDENTS

¶27

Alam Das Kosley & others Versus

¶28

The State of Chhattisgarh & others

¶29

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶30

Present:Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(Passed on this 14th dayof July, 2014)

¶33

Heard learned counsel forthe parties.

¶34

The petitioners were appointed in different Class-lV posts under

¶35

Special Recruitment Drive for S.C. & S.T. candidates in the year 1992. Their appointmentwas made on daily wager/collector rate basis.

¶36

Jn the year 2005, petitioner No.6 herein preferred a writ petition

¶37

bearing W.P. No.444/2005, which was disposed of by order dated

¶38

20.3.2006 in the following manner:-

¶39

The petitioner is working as a peon on daily wage basis with the respondents. He is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the respondents to regularize his services.

¶40

(2) Even before approaching this Court, the petitioner had filed a representation ahd that . representation of the petitioner for regularization of his services has not been considered by the respondents. (3) As requested by the petitioner, a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner may not be permissible in view of the dedaration of law made by the Apex Court. The only direction that can be issued for the present t6 the respondents is to consider the representation said to have been filed by thepetitioner, ifthe same is available in their files.

¶41

(4)^{Accordingly,thewrit} petition^{isdisposedof.A} direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner, if it is available in their files, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered Accordingly.

¶42

Similar order was passed in W.P. No.439/2005 filed by Johar Lal, petitioner^{No.5herein.Similarorde.rwasalso} passed^bydifferent co-ordinate bench on 09-05-2007 in W.P. No.441/2005.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitionerwould submit that despite order passed^{bythisCourt,representationshavenotbeendecided.He} would also submit that the petitioners are entitled for regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and all consequential benefits like arrears of salary etc.

¶44

When some of the petitioners approached this Court for the first time in the year 2005, prayer for regularization was sought for and their writ petitions were disposed of. It was not the case of the petitionersin^{theearlierroundoflitigation,notatleastinW.P.} isjo.444/2005 that they are entitled for any regular appointment from the date of initial appointment. Thus, the petitioners have treated themselves to be daily wager, till their services were regularized by the State Government on the strength of circular dated 05-03-2008.

¶45

It is trite law that regularization cannot be made from retrospective effect. Even otherwise, the petitioners have approached this Court after inordinate delay.

¶46

It is well settled principle of law that the Court is not expected to

¶47

"^i " 1
':^^

¶48

give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. (See: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu1).

¶49

8., The Supreme Court in the matter of Yunus (Baboobhai) A Hamid

¶50

Padvekarv. State of Maharastrs^ has held that:-

¶51

"Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party."

¶52

Thus, considering from any angel on the basis of discussion made

¶53

above, the petitioners have no case for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition being bereft of any substance is deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶54

Ashu

¶55

P^bant^n"Mishta Judge

¶56

l(2014)43cc 108 2(JT 2009 (3) SC 487)

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alam Das Koshley and Ors. v. State of C.G. 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

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

Satyawat Mahapatra and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. and Ors.

Teshlal Prajapati Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Ors.

Dr. U.G. Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another