'F'r • HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BfLASPUR W.P. No. 4731 of 2005 Peti'tioner Radheshyam Sahu, S/o Flrturam Sahu, aged about - 37 years, R/o Bemetra In front of steite bank, Bemetra, District- Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Stete of Chhattssgarh, Through the S^orotary Heaith Sorvices, Vanrraiay, D.K.S. BuMding, Ras'pur <CG). 2. Director- Msafth Servsces, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Union of Sndja, Through - Secrstor^, jMinisfry of Heaith and Famiiy Welfare, New Dethi. 4. District teprosy offrcer, District Durg 5. Chief iVSedicat ancj Hsalth Offscsr. Durg. District-Durg (CG). 6. D»striciCollector, Durg, District- Durg (CG). SB: Hon'bte Mr. JustSce SsSish K. Asnihotrj, J Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S. K. BeriwsS, Standjng CounseS for the respondent No.3. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for ths respondente No. 1,2 and 4,53nd6. ORDER (Passed on this 21st day of March, 2007) The fojSowiRg order ofthe Court Is passed by Safish K. AgnjhoSri, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of ths Constjtution of India the pstitioner seeks to challengs the {esatity. yaSJdity and propristy of the order dated 26.7.2004 (Annsxure P/2). whereby hls semces has been termlnatect, in view of frse order dated 9.2.2004 issued by the Govemment of Sndia. Djrectorate of Health Servtcss. Nsw Delhl. with immedjste effsct. 2. The petitsoner was appointed on the post of Drlver vide orcter dated 22.6.19^) (Annexure P/1) under the terms and conditions laid down in the 33id order. Thsreafter, the petitioner conttnued to work on T^akur same post tilS the impugned order dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure P/2) was passecS. 3. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner, as we!S as for the respondents submit that the facts and qyesfjon of Sav/ invoSved in She present petitlon is simiSar to that in the Writ Petition No. 1794/2003 (Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. SSate of Chhatti'sgarh & others) v/h$ch was dlsposed of vide order dated 25.6.2003, whersiRlt has besn directed that "If the petjtioner makes a representatjon v/ithin a period of one month from today. concerned authority shaSI JGGk into fhe matter and If the services of the petitioner can be absorbed then they can consider his casefor absorptJon/appojntmeRS." 4. In view of the above, this pstition stands disposed of with the direction that If the peSitsoner makes a representation to the concerned authority withina period ofone month from today, it shatt consSderand dedde the same cn ite own msrite. in accordance wlth {av^, within a reasonabie psriod. If IS is permitted to absorb the petStsoner, then he should consider his case for absorptjon/re-appoinfenent In servjces. ConsequentSy, M(W)P No. 3831/2005 stands disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnibotn Judge