Gopal Singh v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 787 of 2016 Gopal Singh S/o Maan Singh Yadav, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Samgali, Post Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3. Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 03/10/2017 Heard on admission.

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No.1703 of 2015 and batch of petitions) concludes the issue raised in this petition that for the purpose of considering cases for regularization under circular dated 5.3.2008 of the State Govt., an employee shall be deemed to continue in service from initial date of appointment where his termination order has been set aside and he has been reinstated by an award of the Labour Court.

2.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the legal position is settled but the matter would require consideration on verification of facts. 3.

The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1994 as daily wage employee. He was terminated from service in the year 2000. This order was challenged before the Labour court successfully, when the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement on 30.04.2010, which led to reinstatement without back

wages. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Tukaram (supra), it is settled that the effect of reinstatement would be continuity in service, therefore, the petitioner's case ought to be considered for regularization treating him to be a daily wage employee working continuously since 1994. 4.

The impugned order dated 9.4.2015 passed by the authority (Annexure P-4) is clearly in the teeth of order of Division Bench and cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner's case for regularization be re-considered by the respondent-authority treating him to be continued in service working as daily wage employee since 1994 and appropriate decision be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5.

The petition is accordingly allowed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Rekha