Vijay Kumar Kaushik v. State Of Chhattisgarh
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1191 of 2019 1.
Vijay Kumar Kaushik S/o Shri S.C. Kaushik Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 2.
Narendra Kumar Lodhi S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Lodhi Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employees 3.
Krishna Kumar Lodhi S/o Shri Ramrum Lodhi Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 4.
Harprasad Dhiwar S/o Late Shri B.R. Dhiwar Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 5.
Praveen Kumar Kaushik S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Kaushik Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 6.
Bhagirathi Dhruw S/o Shri Sukhiram Dhruw Aged About 40 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 7.
Smt. Saraswati Kaushik, W/o Shri Pramod Kaushik Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 8.
Smt. Meena Bai Kaiwarth W/o Shri Manharan Lal Kaiwarth, Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee 9.
Smt. Girija Bai Kaiwarth W/o Santosh Kaiwarth Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee
10. Smt. Maheshiya Gond W/o Shri Satrihan Gond Aged About 34 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee
11. Smt. Dhan Bai Kashyap W/o Shri Lekh Ram Kashyap Aged About 33 Years Occupation - Daily Wages Employee All the petitioners are Working Under The Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidhyalay, Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners
Versus
1.
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2.
The Registrar Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidhyalay, Labhandi Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3.
The Dean/Presiding Officer TCB College Of Agriculture And Research Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioners :
Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For State :
Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.
For Respondent No.2 :
Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
-221/02/2019
1. The limited grievance which the petitioners have raised in the present writ petition is for direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners for regularization.
2. According to the petitioners, they have been working as Daily Wage Employee under the respondents since 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 onwards and by now they have put in more than 10 years of service therefore prayed for their case to be considered for regularization in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "State of Karnatak & ors. Vs. Uma Devi & ors.", 2006 4 SCC 1.
3. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case so far as the entitlement is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization subject to verification of facts and records. It is made clear while claim is being considered the aspect of the petitioners' seniority in the department as Daily Wage Employee would also taken note of and appropriate orders would be passed. It is also expected that while deciding the respondents would also take into consideration the recent circulars, which the State has passed dealing with the aspect of regularization.
4. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved