Rajesh Kumar Bajpai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7457 of 2018 Rajesh Kumar Bajpai S/o Sarju Prasad Bajpai Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer In The Office Of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Kabirdham, R/o Circuit House Compound, Collectorate Road, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Police Station - Rakhi, Tahsil - Aarang, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/11/2018

1. Heard.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Engineer on daily wages basis on 26.09.1988 against a clear vacant post. The services of the petitioner were continued with artificial break of two or three days in service and worked continuously till the date of his regularization. The petitioner was given the benefits of annual increments.

-24. A similarly situated employees approached the State Administrative Tribunal (for short "SAT") in Original Application No. 1979 of 1991 (Satish Kumar Mandloi Vs State of M.P. and another) praying for similar relief as sought for in this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this case may also be disposed off in the same terms and conditions.

5. Learned counsel for the State in the light of the order of the SAT as aforestated, submits that after verifying the facts of the case, petitioner's case shall be considered.

6. In view of the foregoing and categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the State, this petition is allowed in the same terms i.e. if the Committee finds the petitioner suitable for the post in all respect, he shall be regularized on the post held by him and shall also pay him salary on regular scale. He shall be entitled to salary for the dates on break in service. His seniority shall be counted from the date of his initial appointment.

7. No costs.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved