/1. PETITION ERS SINQLE BENCH ® Harishankar Choubey, aged about 27 years, .Son of Shri Narendra Nath Choubey, Presently working as Choukidar, Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Rakesh Puri, aged about 32 years, Son of Shri Prem Chandra Puri, Presently working as Hammal, Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). g4. Santosh Dewangan, aged about 35 years, Son of Shri Nathuram f-Dew—angan Occupation-Service, Presently working as Choukidar, Govt. Polytechnic College, ,Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). c Parmeshwar, aged about 34 years, Son of .Shri Sarpanch, Pres‘ently Govt. working as Hammal, Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). /5. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, aged about 3S years, Son of Shri Rohini Prasad Dwivedi, Presently working as Mali, Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4H2T6 OF 2006 JJ , Suraj, aged about 29 years, Son of Shri ‘Amrit Lal, Presently working as Sweeper, Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District SLlrguja (C.G.). VERSUS l3E$PONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Janshakti Niyojan, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur ‘(C.G.). The Additional Director, Technical Education, Women Polytechnic College Premises, Baron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.). The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic , College, Ambikapur, District Surguja \ (c.G.). E Etwar Ram; Presently working as Hammal; Govt. Polytechnic College, ‘ Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.).’ ‘ Sukhlai; ~Presently working as Hammal; Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Jageshwar Ram; Presently working as Hammal; Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Vijay Shankar Sahu; Presently working as Choukidar; Govt. Polytechnic College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). XI—HC—78 WW, 3V4 W g. ,t‘ww (3)94) «96 o . o....~...o. 9 x oooo.o.. Hi 200 mm (W) WWW @Wm Wwm WWEwW agwm , m.‘ 10-8-2006 Mr. Bhaskar- Payashi, counsel f Mr. Sumesh Bqjqj, Govt Advm on advance copy. Heard bo1'h the counsel. Main grievance of The pefi‘rioner-s raised in This wrif pe‘rifion under Ar'i'icle 226/227 of fhe Consti‘ruiion or fhe pe'ri‘fioner-s. :afe for The Sfafe/respondenfs No.1 to 3, of India is fhaf the pe‘i'i1'ioner's have nof been granfed regular salary as has been granfed To respondenfs No.4 1'0 7 vide order dafed 2-3-2006. Case of fhe pefitioners is fha 7 were appoinfed as daily paid confi fo 1’he petitioners have already bee pefifioners have nof been granfed. Learned counsel for fhe pefi‘ ,ionerslsubmifs fha'r i1- is evident from i Hhe pemioners and respondents No.4 to n ency employees and the persons juniors granfed regular pay scale, whereas, fhe Annexure P-3 Thai- persons at seri regular pay scale whereas, peii‘l'ioner serial Nos.5, 6 & 7 and the petitioner at serial No.11 is senior to respondent oners, respondents No.4 to 7 have been circumstances, learned counsel fur-then i N055, 6, 7 & 12 have been accorded s No.1 fo 4 are seniors to the persons at No.7, ignoring the claim of the petit: granted regular pay scale. In the submits that the petitioners may be lowed to make a detailed representation to respondent No.3 and in turn, re ondent No.3 be directed to decide the representation to which learned coun No.1 to 3 has no objection. sel appearing for the State/respondents P.T.O. XI—HC-78 mm, Wm, (A) WW“ W ? (HQ/6 , Ea 200g mm(W) WWW WWW m m w m k z * WW%WW . %3T%W311%¥T Somn Having hear-d learned counsel for 'the par-fies, having ragard 1'0 fhe fuc‘l's and circumstances of the case, th prayer made by learned counsel for the pefifioners is just fair and reasona le. Therefore, ‘rhe pefifioners are allowed to make a detailed represemaiion 1' respondeni' No.3 wi'lhin fifteen days from 'roday along wifh a copy of This efifion, and in lurn, respondem No.3 is directed fo decide fhe represenfafi n wifhin fwo months from The daie of ifs receip‘l‘ afier considering fhe point manner, in accordance with law. With the direction aforesaid, Consequently,'I.A.No.7652/2 6 also stands disposed of. Parties are entitled for certi raised by the petitioners, in an objective the petition stands disposed of. ied copy of this order. i/ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge éf’ 93* Vi \\ P.T.O.