Smt. Shanti Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:32027

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 8114 of 2019

¶6

Smt. Shanti Pandey W/o Mr. A. K. Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o Street Avenue 7/d, Sec-6, Bhilai, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Smt. Malti Rajput W/o Mr. S. S. Rajput Aged About 50 Years R/o Q. No. F/2, Cross Street, 7, Sec-7, Bhilai, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Smt. Sunanda Phuljhele W/o B. R. Phuljhele Aged About 55 Years R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pingakash General Store, Aditya Nagar Road, Titurdih, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Smt. Sudha Baghel (Verma) W/o Mr. D. L. Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Beside Shriram Health Club, Daganiya, P. O. Sundar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary/ Upper Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Mission Director National Urban Livelihood Mission (Nulm) Office At State Urban Development Authority, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

State Of Urban Development Authority (Suda) Through The Chief Executive Officer, Finance And Administration, National Urban Livelihood Mission (Nulm) Office At State Urban Development Authority, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

City Project Officer Deendayal Antyoday Yojna National Urban Livelihood Mission Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶16

Mission Manager Deendayal Antyoday Yojna National Urban Livelihood Mission Municipality Of Jamul District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶17

City Project Officer Deendayal Antyoday Yojna National Urban Livelihood Mission Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

with

2

WPS No. 760 of 2020

¶22

Smt. Yashoda Sahu W/o Shri Harish Kumar Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Near Anmol Tailors, Sahu Complex, P. S. Tikrapara, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

Smt. Vigyani Sharma @ Dubey W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Danganiya, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

Smt. Ranjana Jha W/o Shri Shyam Kishore Jha Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 250, Street No. 04, Professor Colony Sector 1, Purani Basti, P. S. Purani Basti, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

Smt. Usha Patel W/o Shri Pyarelal Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o In Front Of Gas Plant Nakta Road, Gandhigram, Mandir Hasaud, P. S. Mandir Hasaud, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

Bharti Kashyap D/o Shri Chandan Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Sikola Bhata, Durg Post Mohan Nagar, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶27

6. Kusum Lata Yadav W/o Shri Radhe Shyam Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o 1f Street 12 Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

¶28

Versus

¶29

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary/ Uppar Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

Mission Director National Uraban Livelihood Mission (Nulm) Office At State Urban Development Authority, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶31

State Of Urban Development Authority (Suda) Through The Chief Executive Officer, Finance And Administration, National Uraban Livelihood Mission, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶32

Commissioner / City Project Officer Deendayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶33

Commissioner / City Project Officer Deendayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶34

Mission Manager Deendayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Municipal Of Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶35

Mission Manager Deendayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Ahirwara, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶36

8. Mission Manager Deendayal Antyoday Yojna, National Urban Livelihood Mission, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶37

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶38

3

¶39

For Respective Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Raza Ali , Advocate with Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For State	: Mr . Satish Gupta, Government Advocate
For Respondents No. 2 & 3	: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Advocate

¶40

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶41

2 2.08.2024

¶42

By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):-

¶43

“10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal.

¶44

10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the order./letter dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) being illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law and further direct to regularized the petitioner for the post of community organizer in the light of the order dated 05.10.2018 and also in the light of the other provisions.

¶45

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.

¶46

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

¶47

The facts of the present case are as under:-

¶48

a) The petitioners were appointed under the Urban Basic Services for Poor (UBSP) scheme on the post of Community Organizer under respondent No. 2. Later on, the name of the scheme was changed to Swarn Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana. Most of the petitioners were appointed in the years 1999 - 2003 on an ad-hoc basis, and the period of contract was extended from time to time. The Swarn Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana was replaced by the National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) by virtue of the 12th five-year plan.

¶49

b) The petitioners and similarly situated employees filed a writ petition before this Court, the petitions were disposed of vide

¶50

4

¶51

Order dated 14.12.2017 and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization according to the scheme within a period of eight weeks. The representations were dismissed by the Commission Director vide Order dated 03.04.2018 on the ground that the petitioners were appointed under the specific scheme. It is further stated that the petitioners were appointed through the Nodal Placement Agency/Nodal Agency and the posts were temporary in nature. It was also observed that there was no instruction by the State Government with regard to regularization. The petitioners have challenged the order Annexure P/1 dated 03.04.2018 and have sought a direction to the respondents to regularize their services in the post of Community Organizer.

¶52

Mr. Raza Ali and Mr. Anurag Khatri, the learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners submitted that initially, the petitioners were appointed under the Urban Basic Services for Poor (UBSP) scheme on the post of Community Organizer. They further submitted that the name of the scheme was changed, but the employees were working from 1999-2003, though the scheme was changed from time to time from UBSP to Swarn Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana, then NULM and thus, they completed more than 20-25 years. They also submitted that services of some of the similarly situated employees were regularized by the State Government vide Order dated 05.10.2018. It is further contended that the petitioners are also entitled to equal treatment. It is also contended that the appointment of the petitioners was not illegal, and therefore, after the completion of a period of 10 years, the name of the petitioners for regularization should be considered by the respondent authorities in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 4 SCC 1 . In support thereof, they placed reliance on the judgment

¶53

5

¶54

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 490, wherein, the order passed by the High Court was set-aside and authorities were directed to consider the entitlement of the employees for regularization in their respective posts.

¶55

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 would oppose. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioners were not appointed according to the constitutional mandate. He further submitted that no advertisement was issued, and no examination was held; therefore, their appointments would be illegal. He also submitted that the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government rather they were appointed under the Scheme. He contended that later on, the petitioners were appointed through a placement agency. It is further contended that the services of some of the employees were regularized, but later on, that order was withdrawn on 18.10.2019. In support of submissions, Mr. Agrawal has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs. Director General of Police, Assam reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 .

¶56

Mr. Satish Gupta, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Agrawal.

¶57

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶58

In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have not placed orders of appointment and from a perusal of the pleadings, it is apparent that the petitioners were appointed under the Urban Basic Services for Poor

¶59

6

¶60

(USBP) scheme, and thereafter, under the Swarn Jayant Sahari Swarojgar Yojana, which came to an end in the year 2013-14, and thereafter, they were appointed under the National Urban Livelihood Mission (NULM) on contract basis. It is not in dispute that they continued their services on the post of Community Organizer since the date of their appointment, but their employer changed from time to time, and lastly, as it is evident from the order impugned that they were appointed by a placement agency.

¶61

In the absence of appointment orders it cannot be held that the petitioners were appointed strictly in consonance with the Constitutional mandate. There is no pleading with regard to the fact that the advertisement was issued, the petitioners had submitted their application forms, they participated in the recruitment process, the merit list was prepared and thereafter, they were appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post. To conclude whether the appointment of the petitioners was irregular or illegal, there should be pleadings, in the absence of documents and pleadings, it cannot be concluded that the appointment of the petitioners was irregular or illegal.

¶62

In the matter of Uma Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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 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. To apply this law, there must be pleading and proof to the effect that the appointment of the employees was regular.

¶63

7

¶64

10. In the matter of Vinod Kumar (supra), the appellants/aggrieved persons were initially appointed to the posts of Accounts Clerk after a selection process involving written tests and viva voce; therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as they worked for more than 10 years and they should be considered for regularization in the respective posts.

¶65

11. The facts of the present case are entirely different, the petitioners were not appointed after the selection process; no advertisement was issued; and no recruitment process was followed for appointment.

¶66

12. In the matter of Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme. The employee concerned who continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not be entitled to seek permanency or regularization. Relevant para 13 to 15 are reproduced herein below:-

¶67

13. The fact that the appellants were employed under the PIF Additional Scheme is not disputed. The duration of PIF Additional Scheme under which they are employed was initially two years, to be reviewed for continuation along with the original PIF Scheme. The said scheme is being extended from time to time and is being continued. If the temporary or ad-hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of the persons employed under the Project or Scheme would come to an end, on completion/closure/cessation of the Project or the Scheme.

¶68

14. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. Even if any posts are sanctioned with reference to the Scheme, such sanction is of ad hoc or temporary posts co-terminus with the scheme and not of permanent posts.

¶69

8

¶70

15. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who were engaged with reference to or in connection with such Project or Scheme cannot claim any right to continue in service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. (See Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana - 1987 (4) SCC 634, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration - 1992 (4) SCC 99, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., vs. Employees Union - 1995 (3) SCC 474, UP Land Development Corporation vs. Amar Singh - 2003 (5) SCC 388, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra - 2005 (5) SCC 122, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi - 2006 (4) SCC 31, Indian Council of Medical Research vs. K. Rajyalakshmi - 2007 (2) SCC 332, and Lal Mohammed vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. - 2007 (2) SCC 513). In view of this settled position, the appellants will not be entitled to regularization.

¶71

13. Now coming to the facts of the present case in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the petitioners were engaged in connection with a particular project i.e. a specific scheme. They were ad-hoc/temporary employees though they worked for 22 to 25 years; it would not entitle an employee to seek permanency or regularization.

¶72

14. Though the services of some of the employees were regularized, later on, those orders were annulled; therefore, the petitioners would not get any benefit on account of the issuance of the order of regularization.

¶73

15. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts and materials of the case at hand, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to entertain the instant petitions. Accordingly, the instant petitions fail and are hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶76

$iddhant

Smt. Shanti Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanti Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Singh Porte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Asma Ahmad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt.santoshi Tandan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Laxmikant Jaiswal Vs The Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya and Ors.

Smt. Chandrika Som Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh