Chattisgarh High Court
Khelaf Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5806 of 2021
Khelaf Ram S/o Dhaja Ram Aged About 53 Years R/o Village And Post
Hataud, Police Station Kasdole, District Baoda Bazar Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water
Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Godawari
Kachhar, Shaker 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. Mateen Siddiqui, Deputy A.G.
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.
4. 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 191/95/MPIR Act. The said dispute stood
allowed in favour of the worker-petitioner as early as on 23.07.2001.
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 a
writ petition i.e. WP No. 4021/2005. The writ petition also finally stood
dismissed on 03.04.2014. Thus, the order of the Labour Court stood
affirmed. Meanwhile, the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f.
01.01.2006 and since then the petitioner uninterruptedly is working
under the respondents.
5. 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. 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.
6. 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. 01.08.1984 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the submission made by the learned State counsel, the writ
petition at this juncture stands 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 01.01.2006, 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).
10. 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.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Ved
