Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Verma And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr on 10 February, 2023
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 16/11/2022
Order Delivered on 10/02/2023
WPS No. 4266 of 2012
1. Sandeep Verma S/o Late Ambika Charan Verma Aged About 41 Years,
Occupation-Service, presently working as Sanitary Inspector, Municipal
Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) R/o SB-5, Sri Sai Vihar, Guru Teg Bahadur
Nagar, New Purena Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Gopi Chand Dewangan S/o Late Awadh Ram Dewangan Aged About 46
Years, Occupation-Service, presently working as Sanitary Inspector,
Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.), R/o Lakhe Nagar, Infront of Surjeet
Cycle Store, Mahadev Ghat Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Rajendra Kumar Soni S/o Late Sonal Lal Soni Aged About 50 Years,
Occupation-Service, presently working as Sanitary Inspector, Municipal
Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) R/o Qtr. No. 625, Purani Basti, Bandhwapara,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Urban And Rural
Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Municipal Corporation Raipur, Through: Its Commissioner Malviya Road,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Adv.
For State/respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Adv.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J.
C A V Order
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
quashing/set aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure- P/1, P/2 &
P/3) and for direction to the respondent to regularize the services of the
petitioners in pursuance of circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure-P/11) from the
date when the other employees who have been appointed along with the
petitioners, have been regularized by the respondents vide order dated
28.08.2008.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners vide order dated 09.05.1997
along with three other persons were appointed as 'Sanitary Inspector' in the
establishment of respondent No. 2 (Municipal Corporation, Raipur) on an
honorarium basis. The appointment of the petitioners was on sanctioned and
vacant post of Sanitary Inspector. On 08.02.1997 respondent No. 2 passed a
resolution to pay the petitioner's salary as a 'daily wager' and on the basis of the
said resolution, an order was passed to appoint the petitioners as daily wage
employees for 89 days from the year 1988. The petitioners continued to work on
the said post under different orders passed during this period without there being
any interruption in the service. On 05.03.2008 the State Government issued a
circular to implement the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras
52 & 53 of the judgment of "Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs.
Umadevi (3) & Other" reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. On the basis of the said
circular respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.08.2008 regularized the services of
two persons who were appointed along with the petitioners. The petitioners made
several representations to respondent No. 2 but till date, respondent No. 2 has
not regularized the services of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have
preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S) No. 2316/2011 and the
said writ petition has been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the
respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in
accordance with the policy of the regularization dated 05.03.2008 and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of
Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (3) & Other reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. But the
respondent authority rejected the representations of the petitioners for
regularization. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners for the
following reliefs:-
10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the orders
dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure -P/1, P/2 & P/3) passed in respect of the
petitioners herein being illegally, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in pursuance of
the circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure-P/11) with effect from the date
on which the persons appointed along with the petitioners have been
regularized i.e. from 28.08.2008.
10.3. cost of the proceedings.
10.4. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of
the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and contrary to the law
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned orders suffer
from malice in law as only in order to wriggle out from the contempt proceedings
this order has been passed. He next submits that the impugned orders suffer from
discrimination as two persons who have been appointed with the petitioners have
been regularized by the respondents vide order dated 28.08.2008. The denial of
benefits to petitioners on the basis of a circular dated 05.03.2008 is a violation of
the fundamental rights enshrined in part-III of the constitution of India. He also
submits that the respondents failed to see that the petitioners were fully eligible
for regularization on the post of Sanitary Inspector as per the circular dated
05.03.2008. As per set-up of the respondent No. 2, there are 25 vacant posts of
Junior Sanitary Inspectors and 10 posts of Senior Sanitary Inspectors and
therefore respondent No. 2 should have regularized the services of the petitioners
also. He lastly submits that the conduct of the respondents is violative of the
petitioner's fundamental rights granted under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corpn., Jabalpur vs. Om Prakash
Dubey, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 373.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that respondent authority
constituted a committee in the year 2011 for considering the regularization of
those daily wager employees who were employed prior to 1997 and have not
been granted the benefit of regularization till date. A copy of the order dated
29.11.2011 with regard to the formation of the committee is Annexure-R/2-1. The
committee considered the regularization of the daily wagers including the present
petitioners and made certain recommendations. However, when the
recommendation was placed before the authorities, it was directed to ascertain
whether the candidates who are being considered have the required qualifications
before the appointment to the proposed post. Subsequently, it was found that
although petitioners No. 2 and 3 in the present petition are eligible for the
proposed post, petitioner No. 1 is not having the required qualification and he can
be considered for another post (pumpman). As the recommendation of the
committee was found to be made without keeping the required qualification in
mind therefore a meeting of the committee members was called on 06.01.2012.
After some time committee members have been transferred to another municipal
corporation, therefore, a new committee was proposed to be formed on
07.03.2012. As the educational qualification required for the Junior Sanitary
Inspector had changed in the present set-up hence there was certain confusion
with regard to the required qualification/eligibility of the daily wager candidates
who were to be considered for regularization as provided in the circular dated
05.03.2008 of the General Administration Department of the State Government of
Chhattisgarh & the memo dated 03.04.2008 of the Department of Urban
Administration and Development of the State Government of Chhattisgarh.
Therefore, a letter for clarification was sent to the Principal Secretary, Department
of Urban Administration and Development for clarifying whether the present
petitioners shall be considered for regularization as per present service
recruitment rules or the service recruitment rules prevailing at the time when the
present petitioners were actually inducted in the Municipal Corporation. A copy of
the letter dated 09.03.2012 is Annexure -R/2-4. Thereafter, as no clarification was
received from the State Government in response to the above letter therefore a
reminder was sent on 20.04.2012 to the State Government again. A copy of the
reminder dated 20.04.2012 is Annexure- R/2-5 but no response was received
from the State Government, therefore, the Municipal Corporation constituted a
new committee for considering the regularization of those left out daily wager
employees who were employed prior to 1997. A copy of the order dated
16.08.2012 with regard to the formation of the new committee is Annexure- R/2-6.
On 24.08.2012 the newly constituted committee again considered the matter of
the regularization of the daily wagers including the present petitioners and made
specific findings after examining the case of the present petitioners:-
A. Firstly they were granted appointment on honorary basis (without pay) on the
post of Junior Sanitary Inspector on 09.05.1997;
B. Secondly the honorary appointment were granted on the condition that they will
not claim appointment for this post in future;
C. Thirdly they were given appointment as daily wager on 25.05.1998, therefore
there appointment is after 1997.
Hence, in light of the circular of the State Government as their appointment was
after 31.12.1997, they cannot be considered for regularization and their case was
rejected. A copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting dated
24.08.2012 is Annexure-R/2-7. In view of the above decision of the committee
formed for considering the regularization of the present petitioners the
representation of the petitioners was rejected and the petitioners were intimated
on 03.09.2012 vide impugned orders Annexure-P/1, P/2 and P/3. Simultaneously
the two employees who were similarly situated with the petitioners and in whose
favour earlier the order of regularization was issued were issued show cause
notice as to why their order of regularization may not be cancelled. A copy of the
show cause notice dated 22.09.2012 is Annexure-R/2-8. Therefore, the petitioners
are not eligible for regularization so this petition is liable to be dismissed. He has
placed reliance in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of
State of Karnataka vs. C.K. Pattamashetty and Another reported in (2004) 6
SCC 685.
5. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
6. It is clear from the documents that petitioners were appointed on
30.05.1997 (Annexure-P4), which reads as under:-
dk;kZy; uxj ikfyd fuxe] jk;iqj
%% vkns'k %%
dzekad [email protected]@LFkk- [email protected] jk;iqj] fnukad 03-05-97
fuEukafdr vkosnu djrk dks iw.kZr% vLFkk;kh fLFkfr vkxkeh vkns'k rd dfu"B LFkkiuk
fujh{kd ds in ij voSrfud :i ls fu;qDr fd;k tkrk gSA fcuk lwpuk ds budh lsok,a dHkh Hkh
lekIr dh tk ldrh gS] ,oa Hkfo"; esa bl in ij fu;qfDr gsrq budk nkok vkifIr ekU; ugha fd;k
tkosxkA
1- Jh jktsUnz dqekj lksuh
2- Jh lanhi 'kekZ
3- Jh jfodqekj uofu"kk
4- Jh Nuuwjke Jhokl
5- Jh xksihpan nsokaxu
6- Jh lehj iky
vk;qDr]
uxj ikfyd fuxe] jk;iqj
and vide order dated 08.12.97 (Annexure-P/5) they were granted daily wages,
which read as under:-
uxj ikfyd fuxe] jk;iqj
LFkk;h lfefr ladYi dzekad (43) ifjr fnukad 8-12-97
fo"k; %& fcuk osru ds dk;Zjr ^LoPNrk fujh{kdksa^ dks nSfud osru dh nj ls osru Hkqxrku djus dh
Lohd`fr nsus ij fopkj djukA
ladYi %& fcuk Hkqxrku ds dk;Zjr~ 6 LoPNrk fujh{kdksa dks mDr in gsrq fu/kkZfjr nSfud osru dh
nj ls vkns'k tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls osru Hkqxrku djus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gSA lsok laca/kh
vU; 'krsZa iwoZor jgsaxhA
Further by order dated 25.05.1998 (Annexure-P/6), they were appointed as daily
wages employees for a period of 89 days and then continued working as daily
wages employees. As per Uma Devi case, the State Government of Chhattisgarh
issued a circular dated 05.03.2008 for the regularization of services of daily
wages employees who were working on the post of class-3 & 4 between the
period from 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 (Annexure-R/2-7) following order has been
passed which reads as under:-
&@@dk;Zokgh [email protected]@&
--------------fu;fefrdj.k lfefr ds le{k 1997 ds iwoZ ls dk;Zjr fuEukuqlkj deZpkfj;ksa ds
izdj.k fopkjkFkZ j[ks x;s %&
1- Jh lanhi oekZ] LoPNrk fujh{kd (nSfud osru Hkksxh)
2- Jh jktsUnz lksuh] LoPNrk fujh{kd (nSfud osru Hkksxh)
3- Jh xksihpan nsokaxu] LoPNrk fujh{kd (nSfud osru Hkksxh)
4- Jh jktkjke ;kno] okgu pkyd (nSfud osru Hkksxh)
5- Jh larqjke lksudj] iapk;rdehZ fuf'pr ekuns; ij fu;qDr
6- Jh fcgkjh lkjFkh] iapk;rdehZ fuf'pr ekuns; ij fu;qDr
N-x- 'kklu] uxjh; iz'kklu ,oa fodkl foHkkx ds ifji= dz- ,Q&4&[email protected]@2008 fnukad
03-04-08 esa funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd uxjh; fudk; esa fnukad 31-12-1997 ds nSfud osru ij vFkok
rnFkZ :i ls fu;qDr r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh ds deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;fefrdj.k djrs le; lkekU;
iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= dz- ,Q&12&[email protected]@1&3 fnukad 05-08-2008 esa fufgr izko/kkuksa dk
ikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sA
lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= dh dafMdk&^^c^^ 2 (i) esa ys[; gS fd ^^O;fDr
[email protected]`r fu;fer in ds fo:) inLFk fd;k x;k gks vkSj HkrhZ fu;eksa esa fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd ,oa
vU; ;ksX;rk j[krk gks rks gh fu;fer djus ;ksX; gSA dafMdk&^^c^^ 3 esa ys[; gS fd fu;qfDr voS/k
u jgh gks] dsoy vfu;fer jgk gks rHkh fu;fefrdj.k ds fy;s fopkj fd;k tk ldsxkA fdlh O;fDr
us fnukad 31-12-1997 ds iwoZ vgZrk izkIr dj yh gS ,oa mDr in dh vU; 'krksZa dh iwfrZ djrk gS rks
mls Hkh fu;fer fd;k tk;sxkA^^
N-x- uxj ifyd fuxe (vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lsodksa dh fu;qfDr rFkk lsok dh 'krsZa ) fu;e 2007
esa lh/kh HkfrZ ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr vgZrk rFkk fu;fefrdj.k gsrq 'kklu ds fn'kk&funsZ'k ds vuqlkj
deZpkfj;ksa dk iw.kZ C;ksjk fu;fefrdj.k gsrq izLrkfor [email protected];ksa dh vgZrk ds lkFk
fu;fefrdj.k dk izLrko fuEukuqlkj izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
dz- deZpkfj;ksa dk uke inuke izFke 'kS{kf.kd ,oa vU; izLrkfor HkfrZ fu;e esa
fu;qfDr vgZrk inuke fu/kkZfjr
frfFk vgZrk
1 Jh lanhi oekZ LoPNrk fujh{kd 09-05-97 gk;j lsds.Mjh iaiesu gk;j
mRrh.kZ] lsusVjh lsds.Mjh
fMIyksek mRrh.kZ
2 Jh jktsUnz lksuh LoPNrk fujh{kd 09-05-97 LkkabZal fo"k; esa LoPNrk lkabZal fo"k;
gk;j lsds.Mjh] i;Zos{kd esa gk;j
lsusVjh fMIyksek lsds.Mjh
3 Jh xksihpan nsokaxu LoPNrk fujh{kd 09-05-97 LkkabZal fo"k; esa LoPNrk lkabZal fo"k;
gk;j lsds.Mjh] i;Zos{kd esa gk;j
lsusVjh fMIyksek lsds.Mjh
4 Jh jktkjke ;kno Okgu pkyd 25-03-97 12oh ,oa gSoh okgu pkyd vkBoha ,oa
yk;lsal okgu pkyd
dk yk;lsal
5 Jh larqjke lksudj iaipkyd 03-08-97 vkBoha mRrh.kZ ykbuesu vkBoha
iapk;r mRRkh.kZ
dehZ
6 Jh fcgkjh lkjFkh iaipkyd 09-05-97 vkBoha mRrh.kZ ykbuesu vkBoha
iapkr; mRRkh.kZ
dehZ
lfefr dk fu.kZ; %&
fu;fefrdj.k lfefr }kjk fu;fefrdj.k gsrq izkIr izdj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ijh{k.k esa
ik;k x;k fd dz 1 ls 3 rd ds deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr dk;kZy;hu vkns'k dz- [email protected]
@[email protected] fnukad 09-05-97 ds }kjk dfu"B LoPNrk fujh{kd ds in ij voSrfud :i ls
bl 'krZ ij dh xbZ Fkh fd Hkfo"; esa bl in ij fu;qfDr gsrq budk nkok ekU; ugha fd;k
tkosxkA dk;kZy;hu vkns'k dz- [email protected]@[email protected] fnukad 25-05-98 ds }kjk bUgsa nSfud
osru ij fu;qfDr nh xbZ FkhA bl izdkj budh nSfud osru ij fu;qfDr fnukad 31-12-97 ds
i'pkr~ dk gSA fnukad 31-12-97 ds iwoZ ls nSfud osru ij dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds
fu;fefrdj.k gsrq 'kklu ds vkns'[email protected]'k ds vuq:i ugha gksusa ls budk fu;fefrdj.k
vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA
dz- 4 ls 6 rd ds deZpkfj;ksa ds izdj.k nSfud osru esa fu;qfDr ds iw.kZ O;ksjk ds lkFk
vxkeh cSBd esa j[ks tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA
7. It is clear from the Annexure-R/2-7 that committee recommended only the
name of employees 4-6 namely Rajaram Yadav, Santuram Sonkar and Bihari
Sarthi and had not recommended the name of the petitioners. A chart was drawn
by the committee which shows that the first joining date of the petitioners was
09.05.1997 and the joining date of one Santuram Sonkar was 03.08.1997 but the
committee has not recommended the name of the petitioners on this ground that
the petitioners were appointed on this condition that they cannot claim on the
regular post in future. But it is not disputed by the respondent that petitioners are
working since 09.05.1997.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and
Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 7423-7429
of 2018 held in para 11 as under:-
"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the
Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the
appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of
promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the
benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10
years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid
objection to their regularisation like misconduct etc."
9. After perusal of the records, it is clear that the respondent authorities have
regularized the service of some other employees who were appointed after the
appointment of the petitioners and petitioners were denied regularization on this
ground that they were appointed under some terms and conditions. During the
course of the argument learned counsel for the respondent submits that show
cause notices were issued to other persons, but he fairly admits the fact that they
are working with the municipal corporation till date.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subject-matter,
the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.09.2012 (Annexure-P/1,
P/2 & P/3) are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to again
inspect the matter and records of 1997 till 28.08.2008 when the services of other
daily wagers were regularized and it is also directed that the services of the
petitioners should be regularized from 28.08.2008 with back wages. It is also
directed that all this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
