Chattisgarh High Court
Shyamu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5807 of 2021
Shyamu S/o Chhedu Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post- Pisid,
Police Station- Kasdole, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water
Resource, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur P. S. Rakhi Atal Nagar
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chief Engineer Water Resource Department Mahanadi Godawari
Kachhar Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Executive Engineer Water Resource Division (Construction) Kasdol,
District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
4. Sub Divisional Officer Water Resource Division, Kasdol Tahsil And P.
S. Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod K. Deshmukh, Advocate
For State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
25/10/2021
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally at the
admission stage.
2. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an
appropriate direction to the respondents for considering his claim for
regularization in service.
3. The facts of the case in brief is that according to the petitioner he was
initially engaged as a daily wage worker by the respondents as early
as on 01.05.1986. He continued to work under the respondents for a
period of roughly 8 years and he stood discontinued w.e.f.
01.08.1994. The discontinuance part was challenged by the petitioner
by way of a dispute under Section 31(3) of the MPIR Act, 1960. The
said case was registered as Case No 198/95/MPIR Act. The said
dispute stood allowed in favour of the worker-petitioner as early as on
27.08.2001. The order of Labour Court was subjected to challenge in
an appeal under Section 65 before the Industrial Court and the
Industrial Court also vide order dated 11.10.2004 rejected the appeal
of the State. The two orders i.e. the order passed by the Labour Court
as also the order passed by the Industrial Court was subjected to
challenge in WPL No. 1961/2008. The writ petition also finally stood
dismissed on 05.05.2014. The said order has also been challenged in
W.A. No. 678/2015, which was too dismissed vide order dated
11.01.2016. Thus, the order of the Labour Court stood affirmed.
Meanwhile, the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 03.09.2007
and since then the petitioner uninterruptedly is working under the
respondents.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Department had moved the
proposal for regularizing similarly placed daily wage workers and the
Department shorted out list of 22 candidates of all similarly placed
who were entitled for consideration of regularization. However of the
22 candidates only one was considered and regularized by the
Department and the others have been left out or ignored without any
cogent or justifiable reason, which has led to the filing of the present
writ petition.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the order of the
Labour Court declaring the discontinuance of 1994 to be illegal and
the order of the Labour Court getting affirmed by the Industrial Court
in an appeal and also by this Court in a writ petition applying the
principles of relating back the employment of the appellant-worker
has to be treated as to be in continuous employment from the time of
the discontinuance made w.e.f. 01.08.1994 which has been struck
down by the Labour Court. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in case of "Tukaram Sahu v. State of
Chhattisgarh & others" WPS No. 1703/2015 decided on 16.05.2017,
whereby a similar view has been affirmed by the Division Bench of
this Court.
6. According to the petitioner there is no reason why the petitioner
should not be regularized, particularly taking into account the fact that
the initial engagement of the petitioner was w.e.f. 01.05.1986 onwards
and therefore he falls under Clause (A) of the circular of the State
Government dated 05.03.2008.
7. The State counsel on the other hand submits that since the claim of
the petitioner has till date not been finally decided by the respondents,
the matter can be disposed of in the light of the Relief clause No.
10(A) of the writ petition and the authorities can be ordered to take an
appropriate decision after due verification of his entitlement part.
8. In view of the submission made by the learned State counsel, the writ
petition at this juncture disposed of directing the respondents to
scrutinize the claim of the petitioner for regularization and to pass an
appropriate decision keeping in view the employment of the petitioner
between 01.05.1986 to 01.08.1994 and also the claim of the petitioner
having been reinstated from 03.09.2007, on which post he is till date
working. The Department also in the course of deciding the
representation would keep in view the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of "Tukaram Sahu" (supra).
9. Let an appropriate decision in this regard be taken by the respondent
authorities within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
