^ S.B. (Service Matteri IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITION(S1 NO.tS l '2-^, /2011. PETITIONER: Gore Lal Sahu, son of Soncharan Sahu, aged about 36 years, residence of Baghdevipara Kasdole, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents .,^ /^ .^y ^w ^/f/ ^ / s?w 3i^~ ^ 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.' Director F'ublic Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur, ChhattisgaTh.ChiofEngineer, Water Resonrces Department, Rcupur, Chhattiogarh- ^' 4. District Project Coorduiator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Chhattisgarh. Rcti')s>u-]r WRIT PETITION UNDER AKTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the Cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OFJLHE RESPONDENTS: ^ww^,^svsTrs, T^fr??HT (^.N>i^lfe|^..(.. 3?i»Ti'!sTfefsr W!TW%1OTN? •4 '-s-g} ^?5TX3^ ^ 3iRFT S~'i-S SB : Hon'bleShri Manindra MpharLShrivastava, J, 05-09-2011 I Shri K. P. Sahu,counsel for the fcetitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyeijfor the State on advance copy. Heard. ! This petition has been filed by th,fe petitioner aggrieved on account of inaction on the part of the respondent ^uthorities in not taking decision with regard to case of the petitioner for regiilarization, pursuant to memo dated 29-12-2009 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitiofier submitted that in order to take decision with regard to claim of regulajrization, the State Government had directed the Director, Public Instructiorjs, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, to examine and send its proposal. He submits representation to the Zila Panchayat fo 2009 (Annexure P-3), however, till dat^, no decision has been taken in the matter. From the memo dated 29-12-2p09, it appears that the State had directed the Director, Public Instruction,i^ to send necessary proposal in the matter of absorption of Peon workingj letter, it also reflects that the matter is| Government/Director level. Interest ofj(istice would be served, ifa direction is issued to the respondents No.1 & 2| petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that| decision with regard to claim of tl1 hat the petitioner had also made consideration of his case on 29-06- on Collector Rate. From the said pending consideration at the State to take decision in the case of the the State Government shall take e petitioner in furtherance of its »llti0<]^•fh*ii;'ll<!l*l,lM^i<("li<l—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^s; ^l4lyl<. ^Tilyil's', tsf^an^ fVfSWW'Ss Si'STI ?SI fels; ^s.H ^Ti^T ^^TE<? W!RR^tt?f3WS z [•tinraf-ef'-Tt^ ^T si*OT ;-'"!T proceedings reflected from memo cjated 29-12-2009 (Annexure P-2) expeditiously. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed off. Tumane Sd/- Shrivastava jiud&e WU^ S^VWW'W- U^WH'I— FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.