Ashok Kumar vs P.C. Meena and Others

Jarat Kumar Jain, J.—This Conc. No. 81 of 2014 arises out of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8971 of 2009 (S) on 19.03.2012.

In brief, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 8971 of 2009 seeking regularization on completion of 5 years service on the post of Chowkidar-cum-Waterman. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2012 on the same terms as contained in the order dated 19.03.2012 in Writ Petition No. 8968 of 2009 (s). The directions issued by the order dated 19.03.2012 was not complied with, therefore, present contempt petition was filed.

The Respondents have filed their reply stating that the case of the petitioner was considered in pursuance to the directions of this Court and vide Annexure-R/1 dated 27.09.2014 it is found that the petitioner is not entitled for regular pay scale as he is daily wager worker. Therefore, his representation has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Waterman on contingency basis and not as a daily wager, therefore, as per the Finance Department''s Circular dated 17.03.1978 on completion of 5 years of service as contingency service, he was required to be regularized on the post. It is further submitted that other employee Rewaram for whom the similar directions in Writ Petition No. 4302 of 2009 were issued and the Single Bench of this Court in contempt proceedings directed the respondents to recall the order and fully comply with the orders passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, the order of Single Bench has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal and S.L.P. preferred has also been dismissed. The petitioner having identical orders in his favour is entitled for the same relief.

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the petitioner is a daily waged employee, therefore, he cannot get the benefit of departmental circular dated 17.03.1978. Besides this, he is in employment of Dhar District, whereas Rewaram was employed in Khargone District. Therefore, he is not entitled for regularization. One employee of Dhar District Sakharam filed Writ Petition No. 10583 of 2012 (s) on identical facts. This Court dismissed Sakharam''s petition vide order dated 22.07.2014 holding that he being a daily wager, not entitled for regularization. The respondents after considering all the earlier judgments and circular dismissed the representation of petitioner. Thus, there is no substance in this contempt petition and it is liable to be dismissed. In support, they have filed copy of the order (Annexure R/1) and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10583 of 2012) dated 22.07.2014.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

The operative portion of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition NO. 8968 of 2009 (S) is as under :

"...... the petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner in all the petitions shall move a fresh representation along with copy of the order passed today and also copies of those orders on which reliance is placed. If such a representation is submitted before the competent Authority, then the competent Authority shall decide the same strictly as per the Law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision. Needful be done with a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation. The representation should not be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner in all the petitions are daily rated employees and without taking into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, which should be taken into consideration by passing speaking order." 8. It is an admitted fact that as per circular of Finance Department dated 17.03.1978, on completion of five years'' service as work charged contingency paid employee, was required to be regularized on the post on which he was appointed as contingency employee. A daily wager employee cannot get advantage of this circular as held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10583 of 2012 (S) [Sakharam Bhanwar v/s State of M.P. and others]. The operative portion of the order is as under :

"Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel delivered in the case of Pramod Patel is of Khargone District. Not only this, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit which has been extended to Pramod Patel as the petitioner in the present case is not at all working under the Contingency Work Charge Establishment. If the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then all the daily wagers working in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh will have to be paid a regular pay scale, on completion of five years of services." 9. Thus, it is clear that the daily wager employee cannot get benefit of regularization. Only the employee who has been appointed under the Contingency Work Charge Establishment can get the benefit of circular dated 17.03.1978. In the present case, while rejecting the representation, it is mentioned that the petitioner is a daily wager employee, therefore, he is not entitled for regular pay scale. Learned counsel for petitioner has not placed on record any document from which it can be inferred that the petitioner is not a daily wager but he is on the post of Chowkidar under Work Charge Contingency Paid Establishment. In the earlier petition, this Court has not given any finding that the petitioner is Chowkidar under Work Charge Contingency Paid Establishment. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Department has rightly dismissed the representation of petitioner.

Thus, the contempt petition stands disposed of.