IN THE HIGE COUPxT 0? CHHA'fTmGIiHH [QT BILASPUR mm PETIHON kc G310 __PE TITIONHRS 1‘“. u E§3§y§ §ES?ON EENT$ OF 2003‘. Arvind Kumar Bharti, Shri s.D. Ram, Aged abeut 32 years. {Sakish Kumar Bharti, Shri S.D. Ram, Aged abeut 3O years; The above named petitioners are E/o aehind Priya Masala Chakki, Jada Pipal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (C.G.). giate gf Chhattisgarh, Thraugh ‘ The Secretary, Farest wepartmant, B.K.5. Bhawan, Raipur, (6.6.). The Con$ervator of Forest, Circle Ambikapur, Ei5£rict Surguja, (C.G.). The Bivisianal Farest Officar, Korea, District Korea, (CUGO )’ contd..2 ,V/ EvRlT PETITICN UNEER ARTICLE 226/ 27 OE: THE vCOI‘mTI'IUTION 9F Imam Few. msma OF m M’fwmigs‘m wIT IN THE NamRE ex: immu 8/ CERTIOE £IKE NATURE ETC . 1. I ’ETIZ‘. OR DIRECTION/ORDER 1N THE 3:4 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR single Bench: Hon’ble shri Sntish K. Ayihotri, J. w. P. N8. 610 among Petiu‘oner : Arvind Kumar Bharti & another Versus Respondents : ‘ State of Chhaftisgarh 8r. othexs ' Shri Rajcsh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Depujty Government Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (27th July, 2006) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the month of February, 1986 on daily wages and petitioner No.2 was appointed in the month of July, 1987 on daily wages, The services ofthe petitioners ~« were terminated by oral order of the respondent No.3, pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government that all daily- wagers, who were appointed after §1.12.1988, their services would not to be regularized. X 2. Being aggrieved, the pen'tioners had preferred Original Application No. 5113/2000 before the State Administran've Tribunal, Jabalpur. That, petition was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 21.3.2002, as the Government of Chhattisgarh had taken a decision to reinstate the employees, who were appointed on daily wages, after due scrutiny. Learned ' , counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners have not been considered by the respondents in the ,/ ' ‘e‘ l \W Scruu‘ny Committee for reinstatement and mgularizaiion, hence the petitioners have tiled this petition. . During the couxse of argument, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government has decided to consider the cases of daily-wagers, appointed prior to 31.12.1988. To substantiate this submission, a copy of the order No. 2732, Raipur dated 1.6.2006, issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration/ Non-Gazetted), Chhattisgarh, Raipur is brought to the notice of this Court. Copy of the order is taken on Iecold. 4. Having heard leained counsel for the parties and having regard to the aforestated order dated 1.6.2006, the respondents ale directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. 5. With the above direction, this peh'tion stands disposed of. No order as to costs.