Sanat Kumar Sharma v. State And Others

I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F C H H A T T I S G A R H A T B I L A S P U R ( C . G . ) w . P .

( S ) N o .

1 4 8 5 / 2 o o 5 ( o . A .

N o .

1 7 7 O F 1 9 9 7 ) ( S I N G L E B E N C H S E R V I C E M A T T E R ) P E T I T I O N E R :

S A N A T K U M A R S H A R M A A P P L I C A N T V E R S U S R E S P O N D E N T S S T A T E O F C H H A T T I S G A R H N O N - A P P L I C A N T A N D O T H E R S D E T A I L S O F A P P L I C A T I O N ( U / S 1 9 O F T H E A . T , A C T , 1 9 8 5 ) 1 .

P A R T I C U L A R S O F T H E A P P L I C A N T : - ( i ) N a m e : S a n a t K u m a r S h a r m a D a t e o f B i r t h z 1 3 . 1 1 . 1 9 6 5 F a t h e r ' s N a m e : L a t e S h i v K u m a r S h a r m a ( i v ) Q u a l i f i c a t i o r g : B . C o m ( T y p i n g C l e a r ) ( v ) D a t e o f a p p o i n t m e n t : 0 9 . 0 1 . 1 9 8 7 ( v i ) O f f i c e A d d r e s § '

: F o r e s t D i v i s i o n O f f i c e E s t a b l i s h m e n t S e c t i o n B e h i n d P o l y t e c h n i c C o l l e g e , D u r g ( M . P . )

P A R T I C U L A R S O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T S : - S t a t e o f M a d h y a P r a d e s h ( 1 ) T h r o u g h : - S e c r e t a r y F o r e s t D e p a r t m e n t G o v t .

o f M . P .

B h o p a l ( M . . 1 5 . ) S e c r e t a r y ( 2 ) G o v t .

o f M . P .

G . A . D .

D e p a r t m e n t V a l l a b h B h a w a n B h o p a l ( M . P ) C h i e f C o n s e r v a t o r o f F o r e s t ( 3 ) G o v t .

o f M . P .

S a t p u d a B h a w a n B h o p a l ( M . P ) D i v i s i o n F o r e s t O f f i c e r F o r e s t D i v i s i o n , D u r g , D u r g ( M . P . )

^} NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WPSNo.1059 of 2005 • Sanat Kumar Sharma - Petitioner

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others -- Respondent And WPSNo.1060 Of 2005 Arun Sh^rma -- Petitioner Vs » State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others -- Respondent And WPS No.2780 Of 2005 Arun Sharma & Another -- Petitioner Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others -- Respondent WPSNo.1485 Of 2005

^ ^.'•, / • Sanat Kumar Sharma -- Petitioner Vs • State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others -- Respondent For Petitioners Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate For RespondenVState Shri S. Majid Ali, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 09/03/2016 1.

These writ petitions were originally filed before the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal as original applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, claimingregularisation on the different class IV posts in the Department of Forest with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

2.

Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners having been protected from termination by interimorder passed by the Tribunal they are entitled to be regularised from the date of initial appointment.

After placing reliance on various decisions of the Supreme 3.

Court, this Court in Smt. Kumari Bai & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1 and other connected matters, while dealing with the similar plea raised by the daily wagers has held thus in para 13 :

'13.

The regularization from a particular date has several aspects on which the order is passed since it depends upon availability of posts in a particular office/cadre, inter-se seniority of persons working on casual basis/daily-wagers and seniority of regular appointees, therefore, this Court, in the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, is of the considered opinion that to pass an order or regularization from a particular date is basically a policy decision and this Court need not interfere in such matters unless a right has accrued in favour of the employees to be regularised from a particular date, which is the cut-off date declared by the State Government.' Merely because interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners staying their termination as daily wager, the same would not improve their case nor would change the settled legal position in this regard.

As an upshot, all the writ petitions, sans merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gowri WPS No.1029 of 2009 (decided on 11-2-2013)