1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 19.05.2014
(Annexure P/1), whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services has been rejected by Respondent No.3 on the ground that the
appointment of the petitioners was illegal.
2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were regularly working in the office of Respondent No.3 under
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from 1989-90 on the sanctioned post and possessed the prescribed qualification according to their respective post, they were
regularly working in the different posts. The petitioners are providing services from their respective date of joining without any break and they are
getting salary as per Collector rate. Their services were also utilized in election and other emergency duty of the Respondent No. 1 as per the
requirement. The Govt. of Chhattisgarh, in compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka
and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 issued circular (Annexure P/2) relating to the regularization of daily wages,
temporary and contractual appointment, who were regularly working prior to 1988 or between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997. However, inspite of the
circular issued by State of Chhattisgarh, the respondents did not initiated any proceeding to regularize the services of the petitioners and being inaction
on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioners moved representation (Annexure P/3) through their Union on 11.02.2009.
3. According to the petitioner, when the General Administrative Department of the State of Chhattisgarh noticed that even after issuance of the
circular dated 05.02.2008, some Departments have not complied with the direction with regard to regularisation of daily wagers. Thereafter, the
Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of C.G. issued another letter on 15.02.2011 (Annexure P/4), in which the specific direction was
given to ensure the regularization of daily wager employee expeditiously. According to the petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 & 3 adopting pick and
choose procedure did not regularised the services of the petitioner and had regularized the junior persons as well as the persons who were not having
requisite qualifications. When the claim of the petitioners for regularisation was not considered, they filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court
seeking relief for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, wherein this Hon'ble Court passed an order
(Annexure P/6) giving liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representation before the competent authority and the time was fixed to decide the
same by the authority concerned. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their representations (Annexure P/7) before the competent authority, but the
same was not deiced within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the contempt proceeding was initiated by the petitioners.
In the contempt proceeding, the former competent authorities did not appear before the Hon'ble Court inspite of service of the notice then bailable
warrant was issued and in that proceeding Mr. N.K. Nigam, Registrar, was the Respondent No. 2, The Respondent No. 2 after issuance of the
bailable warrant appeared before this Hon'ble Court and filed reply contending that the petitioners were working under Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu
University. As such, the order was required to be complied with by the Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University and Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University
was not impleaded as necessary party and the contempt proceeding was withdrawn on 30.08.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners filed writ petition
bearing W.P.(S) No. 1475/2014 before this Hon'ble Court seeking relief for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularize the petitioners in
service as they are working regularly since 1989-90, wherein vide order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P/9), this Hon'ble Court disposed off the petition
with liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation before the respondents and the outer limit of 6 months was fixed to pass appropriate order
regarding regularization of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted representation but the respondent authorities did not comply with the
order passed by this Hon'ble Court within the fix period of 6 months, thereafter the contempt proceeding was filed. After receiving of the notice, the
respondent i.e. Mr. N.K. Nigam filed reply of the contempt petition, in which he filed the copy of the impugned order (Annexure P/1) rejecting the
claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. Hence, this petition seeking following reliefs:
“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus as to quash the impugned order (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Respondent No.3.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to commanding the respondents to regularize in service in their respective post
from their date of joining in compliance with the circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh as well as guideline issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed. â€
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and full of
malafide which deserves to be quashed. In the impugned order , the Respondent No.3 has taken decision that the appointment of the petitioners was
illegal, so they cannot be regularised, is completely incorrect and wrong statement. The petitioners were appointed on the sanctioned post after
requisite procedure and they were regularly working on the different posts as per their qualifications. Learned counsel further submits that the
Respondent No.3 has annexed detail in the impugned order that the petitioners refused to take any notice but no such notice was issued to the
petitioners by him. Learned counsel also submits that the State Government had issued specific direction to regularise the services of the daily wages
and ad-hoc employees and no other adverse direction was given, but in spite of that the Respondent No.3 malafidely issued the impugned order. The
petitioners are regularly working on their respective posts from the date of their joining without any break, as such they are entitled for regularisation in
service in their respective and sanctioned posts as per the circular as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma
Devi (supra).
5. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are still working and have completed the age of 45 years, inspite of that they have not been
regularised, which is against the rights of regularisation, so the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It ha been also submitted that the juniors who
had joined after the petitioners as well as the unqualified persons have been appointed by the then Registrar Shri N.K. Nigam, but the petitioners who
are entitled and keeping the right to regularise, have not be regularised by the respondent authorities, as such the impugned order is liable to be set
aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners. In support of submission, learned counsel placed
reliance on the order dated 13.03.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No(s) 2795-2796/2018 in the matter of Ravi Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors
and order dated 03.07.2023 passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 7898/2020 in the matter of Raman Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are employees of Respondent
No.2 and 3 & they are not praying any relief against Respondent No.1, as such this petition may be dismissed against Respondent No.1.
7. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that by circular dated 05.03.2008, the
Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of General Administration Department, Raipur has laid down the policy of regularisation of daily wagers and
ad-hoc appointees. The policy clearly stipulates that those workers who were appointed in between 01.01.1989 to 31.12.1997 and who have been
continuously working till the date of consideration, are eligible for regularisation. The policy further stipulates that only those appointments which are
irregular can be regularized, however illegal appointments are not entitled for regularisation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have
been working as daily wager in the Veterinary College, Durg, and they have not been appointed by following prescribed rules of appointment. No
selection process was applied while appointing the petitioners, therefore, the appointment of the petitioners falls within the definition of illegal
appointment. The appointment of the petitioners was not against any vacant sanctioned post, as such the petitioners’ representation for
regularisation has been rejected. Therefore, the instant petition being without any merit may be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. By order dated 19.07.2021 of this Court, the writ petition in respect of Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 24, 28, 29, 30 & 31 has been dismissed
as withdrawn on the ground that the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed and the petition is under consideration for rest of the petitioners.
10. By order dated 07.07.2022, this Court directed the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to file affidavit indicating the procedure adopted by them with regard
to regularization of daily wages employees referring the documents which have been considered at the time of regularization and also directed to
indicate why rest of the petitioners have been deprived of regularization. Further, on 19.07.2023, this Court again directed to file scrutiny report of all
the daily wagers prepared by the Committee of 7 members, who were considered for their regularization.
11. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavit and scrutiny report of the Committee, perusal of document
(Annexure D-2) goes to show that the Committee has dismissed the claim of regularization of remaining petitioners on various grounds, out of which
one ground was that ‘not having minimum qualification’ and other was that ‘break of service’.
12. The Supreme Court in recent judgment in the mater of Raman Kumar (supra), held in para 7 and 8 as under :-
“7. In the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court passed in Uma Devi (supra), though the Court has held that backdoor entries
should not be permitted, it has permitte a one time measure to be conducted for regularization of the services of these employees who had
completed the service of more than ten years.
8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed service of more than ten year. Even this Court in the case of Ravi Verma and Others v.
Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No (S). 2795-2796 of 2018) decided on 13.03.2018 found that the act of regularizing the services
of some employees and not regularizing the services of the others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.â€
13. Further in the matter of Ravi Verma (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 13 as under :-
“13. In view of the aforesaid decision, the circulars and regularization of the similarly situated employees at other places and various
recommendation that were made the services of the appellants ought to have been regularized in the year 2006; discriminatory treatment
has been meted out to them. As per the decision of Uma Devi (supra), they were entitled to regularization of services; they did not serve
under the cover of court’s order. Illegality has been committed by not directing regularization of services.â€
14. In the light of aforesaid principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and looking to the fact that several posts are still lying vacant, and
looking to the fact that the petitioners are still working in the respondents Department and some less qualified persons/employees were regularized by
the respondent authorities, the petitioners are also held entitled for regularization.
15. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. The Respondent No. 2 and 3 are directed to
regularize the services of the petitioners from the back date when services of other similarly situated petitioners were regularized. The entire exercise
with regard to regularization of the petitioners be completed within a period of two months from the date of this order.
