Allowed¶48

Jogeshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Feb 2024WPS/4259/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation — daily-wage worker appointed Water-man 06.12.1988 — regularised only as unskilled labour 20.01.2009 — rejection of representation set aside — parity with juniors/similarly situated employees regularised 04.03.2005 — regularization from date juniors regularised — Additional Collector recommendation 19.04.1999 (Gardner post) — precedents applied/relied on: Suraj Prasad Soni (W.A. No.178/2016); Munnalal Bobje (W.P.(S) No.7398/2007) — Article 226 — High Court of Chhattisgarh — WPS No. 4259 of 2011 — Rajani Dubey, J. — petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) set aside; respondents directed to regularise the petitioner's services from the date when services of his juniors were regularised vide order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/8). ¶48

Jogeshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's representation for regularization (Annexure P/1) is liable to be quashed/set aside and whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization on the post of Water-man, with regularization effective from the date his juniors were regularised.

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioner is held entitled for regularisation: a sanctioned post of Gardner was lying vacant when the Additional Collector, Jashpur recommended his case (letter dated 19.04.1999), but the respondents did not consider his case, and daily wage employees who were working prior to 31.01.1988 were regularised on 04.03.2005 while the petitioner's services were not regularised.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) is set aside, and the respondent authorities are directed to regularise the petitioner's services from the date the services of his juniors were regularised vide order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/8).

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Rajani Dubey, J., CAV) — WPS No. 4259 of 2011, decided 19.02.2024. Writ petition under Article 226 by a workman appointed as Water-man on 06.12.1988, posted as Class IV labour from 01.08.1990 and regularised only as unskilled labour on 20.01.2009. His representation for regularization, filed pursuant to the Court's order dated 17.11.2007 in W.P.(S) No.6803/2007, was rejected (order dated 10.06.2009, Annexure P/1) on the ground that he was a Gangman regularised as unskilled labour. Relying on Munnalal Bobje v. State of C.G. (W.P.(S) No.7398/2007) and State of C.G. v. Suraj Prasad Soni (W.A. No.178/2016), and noting the Additional Collector's recommendation dated 19.04.1999 for appointment against a vacant sanctioned Gardner post and the regularization w.e.f. 04.03.2005 of daily wage employees working prior to 31.01.1988, the Court held the petitioner entitled to regularization, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to regularise his services from the date the services of his juniors were regularised (04.03.2005).

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4259 of 2011

¶4

Order reserved on : 10.11.2023 Order delivered on : 19.02.2024

¶5

Jogeshwar Yadav, S/o Shri Bhikhan Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Pathalgaon Rest House, Jashpur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Public Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pathalgaon, Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. S.P.Kale, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, G.A.

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

C A V Order

¶15

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 1.06.2009 (Annexure P/1), whereby representation of the petitioner for regularization filed in pursuance of order dated 17.11.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.6803/2007 has been rejected by the respondent authorities.

¶16

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 06.12.1988, the petitioner was appointed as Water-man at Patthalgaon, Sub Division Patthalgaon and thereafter, he was posted as labour Class IV Employees from 01.08.1990 and was regularized as unskilled labour on 20.01.2009. The petitioner has

¶17

¶18

been working since 06.12.1988. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh had taken a policy decision to regularize the workers who were working prior to 31.12.1988 and in this context, the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh had also issued a letter dated 06.04.1992. According to the petitioner, he had submitted applications on 18.06.2004, 10.06.2006 and on 13.09.2006 before the respondent authorities for regularisation and the respondent authorities got sanctioned permanent post of Gardner. According to the petitioner, similarly placed employees of the respondent department namely Kanhaiyalal, Radhvir Ram, Nagendra Dwivedi, Kunwariya Bai, Rajendra of Bilaspur Division who were junior to the petitioner have been regularised. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6803/2007, which was vide order dated 17.11.2007 (Annexure P/8) was disposed off directing the petitioner to file representation, which will be decided by the respondent authorities. In light of order dated 17.11.2007, the petitioner moved representation (Annexure P/10) before the respondent authorities. When the representation of the petitioner was not decided for long, the petitioner filed contempt petition being Cont. Pet. (C) No.147/2009 for non-compliance of order dated 17.11.2007 and during the pendency of contempt petition, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was regularised as unskilled labour and by order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P/11), the contempt petition was dismissed as

¶19

¶20

withdrawn. Hence, this petition seeking following reliefs:

¶21

“10.1. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated. 10.06.2009 Annexure P-1, whereby petitioner’s representation has been wrongly rejected by the Respondent No. 2.

¶22

10.2. Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization on the post of Waterman.

¶23

10.3 That, the cost of the petition be granted.

¶24

10.4 That the other relief, as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper be also granted.”

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the recommendation for regularization of the petitioner to the sanctioned post of ‘Gardner’ at Dharamjaigarh by the Additional Collector, Jashpur vide letter dated 19.04.1999 (Annexure P-6), the respondent authorities did not regularize the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated persons/workers have already been regularized by the respondent authorities vide Annexure P-8 and the petitioner case for regularization has been denied on the ground that he has been regularized as unskilled labour, which is not at all tenable. The petitioner has been working prior to 31.12.1988 and in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government for regularisation of employees appointed prior to 31.12.1988, the petitioner deserves to be regularised on the post of Water-man. In support of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of this Court passed in the matter of State of C.G. & Anr. Vs. Suraj Prasad Soni & Ors. [W.A. No.178/2016, dated 13.05.2009] and Munnalal Bobje

¶26

¶27

Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. [ W.P.(S) No.7398/2007, order dated 08.08.2019].

¶28

Learned State counsel opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never appointed as Water-man and he was working merely as a untrained Gangmen labour. It has further been submitted that on the application of the petitioner, his name has been included in the permanent Gang and the Sub Divisional Officer had recommended for inclusion in the permanent Gang vide memo dated 27.07.1990 (Annexure R/ 2). Thereafter, the order (Annexure R/3) for including the name of the petitioner in permanent Gang had been passed by the Executive Engineer. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 20.01.2009 (Annexure R/4).

¶29

Learned State counsel also submits that the petitioner was never appointed as Waterman and he was merely an untrained Gangman labour who was assigned work as per its availability and secondly that a mere recommendation (Annexure P/6) of the Additional Collector would not entitle the petitioner to be regularized on any particular post. As regards order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/8), it has been submitted that similarly situated persons/workers have been regularized since the petitioner has already been included in a permanent Gang much prior to the above order dated 04.03.2005 and that the petitioner has been working in the Pathalgaon Division, whereas the above mentioned order has been issued by the Ambikapur Circle,

¶30

¶31

therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to draw any benefit from the above order otherwise also since the name of petitioner has already been included in the permanent gang he was not entitled to be considered for any other post. As such, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

The petitioner has filed copy of letter dated 19.04.1999 (Annexure P/6) of Additional Collector, Jashpur, which is regarding appointment/regularization of petitioner on the post of Gardner. For sake of convenience, the contents of letter is reproduced herein as under :-

¶34

Þfo”k;kUrxZr Jh tksxs’oj ;kno] dk;kZy; vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx iRFkyxkWo vius vkosnu fnukad 19-4-99 ds }kjk voxr djk;k gS fd os o”kZ 1988 ls 1990 rd okVjesu rFkk o”kZ 1991 ls vkt rd etnwj ds in ij vkids foHkkx esa nSfud osru Hkksxh ds :i esa mi laHkkx iRFkyxkWo esa dk;Zjr gSaA ‘kklu }kjk 1988 ds iwoZ dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;fefrdj.k djus gsrq ckj&ckj funsZ’k izkIr gks jgs gSA vr% izkIr vkosnu ewy esa vkidh vksj layXu Hksth tk jgh gSA di;k ‘kklu ds funsZ’kkuqlkj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj bl dk;kZy; dks voxr djkosA ,ao /kjet;x<+ esa tks ekyh in Lohdr gS mlesa fu;qfDr djus gsrq vknsf’kr djsAß

¶35

layXu%& mijksDrkuqlkj

¶36

vij dysDVj] t’kiqj]

¶37

It is apparent from the aforesaid letter that one post of Gardner was vacant at the time of issuance of this letter. The petitioner has also filed copy of letter dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/8) of Public Works Department, Ambikapur Division, which shows that

¶38

¶39

some daily wage employees who were working prior to 31.01.1988 were regularised w.e.f. 04.03.2005.

¶40

In earlier round of litigation being W.P.(S) No.6803/2007, the petitioner was directed to file detailed representation raising all his grievances annexing a copy of the writ petition and its annexures to the concerned authority within a period of three weeks, however the respondent authorities by the impugned order rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he was Gangman and regularised as unskilled labour.

¶41

While dealing with the matter of regularization, this Court in the matter of Munnalal (supra) held that on petitioner’s moving such representation the competent authority shall notice the persons who were regularised on 5-11-1996 and shall hear them also while deciding the petitioner’s representation. The competent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four months from the date of its submission.

¶42

Further, in the matter of Suraj Prasad Soni ( supra ), this Court observed in para 10, which reads thus :-

¶43

“10. With regard to the appeal filed by respondent/ writ petitioners for retrospective regularization, as mentioned already, this Court fully agrees with the view taken by learned Single Judge. We are of the view that the eligible extent of benefit which can be availed by the writ petitioner with regard to regularization has already been extended. No interference is warranted with respect to the said

¶44

¶45

aspect as well. However, we make it clear that regularization shall be with effect from the date on which their juniors has been given the benefit of regularization.”

¶46

In the instant case also, some daily wage employees namely Siyaram Suri, Heeralal Kahri, Bharatlal Pandey, Raruha Ram, Gangaram, Manikdas, Sukul Das and Devram, who were working prior to 31.01.1988, were appointed/regularised on the post of Chowkidar on 04.03.2005 on regular pay scale. However, the services of the petitioner were not regularised by the respondent authorities. As per the letter dated 19.04.1999 (Annexure P/6), at the time of recommendation one sanctioned vacant post of Gardner was lying vacant but respondent authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner in its letter and spirit.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid discussion, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and order dated 17.11.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.6803/2007, the petitioner is also held entitled for regularisation.

¶48

The petition is allowed. Order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. The respondent authorities are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date when services of his juniors were regularised vide order dated 04.03.2005 (Annexure P/8).

¶49

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶50

pkd

Jogeshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogeshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandadevi Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kuleshwar Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cg.Rajya Sahakari Vipran Sangh and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt.goreti Minj Vs Lalsai

C.G. State Industrial Devl. Corp. Ltd. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Smt. Malti Agrawal Vs State Bank Of India