Chattisgarh High Court
Sada Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 January, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2878 of 2018
1 - Sada Singh S/o Shivram Aged About 52 Years Pump Operator Under
Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, P. S. Dantewada, District- South Bastar-
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
2 - Krishna Singh S/o S/o Tulsi Ram Aged About 47 Years Peon, In The
Office Of Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, P. S. Dantewada, District- South
Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary/ Director, Department,
Of Planning And Urban Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Collector, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada
Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
3 - Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer
Nagar Panchayat Dantewada, District- South Bastar, Dantewada,
Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General
For respondent No.3 : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
22.01.2025
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following
relief(s):-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the
record relating to petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the
respondent authority to regularized and permanent join the
petitioner in the respective post of the service.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner
together with cost of the petition.."
2. Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would submit that the petitioners were appointed as a Pump
Operator and Peon, respectively, on a daily wage basis in the year
1995 under the contingency fund in Nagar Panchayat, Datewada.
The petitioners are still working under respondent No.3 as daily
rated employees. He would further submit that an application was
moved for regularization according to the Circular dated
05.03.2008 before the respondent authorities but no decision was
taken. It is also contended that the petitioners filed WPS
No.2228/2013 and the same was disposed of with a direction to
respondent No.3 to examine their claim in light of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others,
2006 (4) SCC 1. He would contend that the petitioners preferred a
writ appeal which was disposed of with a direction to the
respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for
regularization according to the circular. He would further contend
that the services of petitioner No. 2, namely, Krishna Singh have
already been regularized by the department but the name of
petitioner No.1 has not been considered. He would pray for a
direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the case of petitioner
No.1.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Pandey, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose the submissions
made by Mr. Amit Kumar. He would submit that the vacancy is not
available with the Nagar Panchayat, Dantewada, therefore,
petitioner No.1 could not be regularized. He would further submit
that various communications have been made with the State
Government for the sanction of the post but till date, no action has
been taken.
4. Mr. Pandey, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for
the State would argue that in the absence of a vacant post, the
claim of petitioner No. 1 could not be considered. He would further
submit that the case of petitioner No.1 would be considered
immediately if the vacancy arises.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Vinay
Pandey and Mr. Vikas Pandey, counsels appearing for the
respondents, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondent authorities to make all endevours to consider the
claim of petitioner No.1 for regularization. It is expected that the
respondent authorities shall consider the claim of petitioner No.1, if
there is a vacancy.
7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
