Shivraj Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

At the outset, Mr.Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that he is withdrawing the writ petition on behalf of petitioners

No.3 and 4, as such, the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.3 and 4 is dismissed as withdrawn.

Learned counsel for petitioners No.1 and 2, would submit that petitioners No.1 and 2 are working as Chowkidar in respondent No.4ÂNagar

Panchayat, Chhurikala and and by virtue of order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) their services were sought to be dispensed with, but by interim

order of this Court dated 12.11.2010 they are continuing on the said post, however, the order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) has partly been setÂ‐

aside by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.6798 of 2010 (Dhaniram & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others), decided on 20.1.2011, as such, the

writ petition deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, Mr.Animesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr.Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel

for respondent No.3, would support the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure PÂ1) passed by respondent No.1, their services were sought to be

dispensed with, which they have challenged by way of this writ petition and by virtue of interim orderpassed by this Court on 12.11.2010

they are continuing.

It is correct to say that in the matter of Dhaniram (supra) this Court while sustaining the challenge to the order dated 23.9.2010 action of respondent

No.4Â Nagar Panchayat, Chhurikala pursuant to the order dated 23.9.2010 has been held to be bad without proper scrutiny as per the memo dated

5.3.2008. In Dhaniram (supra) this Court held as under:Â​

“9. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the State Government has rightly framed the scheme by memo dated 5Â3Â2008 and directed all the

Departments to securitize cases of daily wages and pass orders accordingly.

For the foregoing reasons and applying the well settled ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovestated cases, the action of the

respondent Corporations pursuant to the memo dated 23Â9Â2010 for removal of the daily wages without proper scrutiny as per the memo dated 5Â‐

3Â​2008 is bad and the same is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the same is quashed.â€​

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioners No.1 and 2 is allowed in terms of order passed in Dhaniram (supra).

However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.4 to take steps, if so advised, in accordance with law. No order as to cost(s).