Petitioner, a daily wager appointed irregularly, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of removal order and regularization of services completing over 13 years. Bench held no right accrued as appointment was not pursuant to statutory rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No.4904 of 2007
Shiv Murat Verma Shri Mangal Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Kunj Nagar, Vishrampur District Sarguja Cg
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
(cause title is taken from case information system)
For Petitioner : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
10.06.2024
“1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 i.e.(Annexure P/1) which relates to the petitioner, and respondents may kindly be directed to continue the service of the petitioner.
2. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
-2-
-3-
initiated for his appointment. The petitioner was removed from services by the respondent authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing but on this count alone, the order of removal cannot be set aside as the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the constitutional mandate, meaning thereby no advertisement was issued, no applications were invited and no selection process was resorted to by the respondent authorities. The appointment of the petitioner was irregular therefore; the petitioner cannot claim the right to be regularized in service.
held as under :
“ 53 . One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071, R.N.Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. 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 above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitment 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
-4-
subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi (supra ), in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed . However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to law.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
rekha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, an irregularly appointed daily wager removed without inquiry, is entitled to regularization of services after completing over a decade of service.
Whether an irregular appointment of a daily wager entitles the employee to the protection of the "global regularization" principle laid down in Uma Devi.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma DeviApplied¶21
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Mysore v. S.V. NarayanappaFollowed¶28
State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071 · Who else cites this
R.N.Nanjundappa v. T. ThimmiahFollowed¶28
R.N.Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
B.N.Nagarajan v. State of KarnatakaFollowed¶28
B.N.Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 · Who else cites this
Shiv Murat Verma
C.G. State Ware Housing Corporation
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
