^ Ss c. lao BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fS.1 N0.5^6^ /2Qii PETITIONER RESPONDENTS y ^3 N^: / ^ lfl)/^. ~ ^y^ /^ t-.o,irS . y~ '/T' rV y^" ^ ^^ ,- 4" <<~ /-l. 2. 3. ^ Smt Lalita Sahu, aged about 33 years, wife of Shri Domar Sahu, occupation - Ausadh Sanyojak, Government n_.i_Ay.urvedik Aushdhalaya, Virendra Nagar, £ot'Ra'flbirpur, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary Department of Health and Family Welfare, Day Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Director, BHARATIYA CHIKITSA PADHATI Evam Homeopathic, Raipur (C.G) The District Ayurved Adhikari, Governmeot .,;. p^c[- fl|ij)IC>' < Ayurvedik Aushdhalaya, Virendra Nagar; Psfr Ranbirpur, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) The District Ayurved Adhikari, Government Ayurvedik Aushdhalaya Pistt. Rajnandgaon (CG) The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat - Kabeerdham (C.G.) ^- WRIT PETITION U/A 226 OF ThiE_COMSTLTUTIQN QFJNDIA ,^~^ '^. 's^r •<ii^ici'4, 0fl1'!-i'i(o, fsidiyy Ur)f->C'5)i^o. S SII^I 'V^f; (•ijqfgq^Er) atl^l-wRFfw ^Bsn^iwiihi E ^ Deepti TCIIW ^ ?T an^r SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohail 3049-2011 Shri Arun Shukia, counsel for «ni<<I<1<<ll111i'iI'?feal ^{^511 ^ sifgn 3Ti^?' Snrivastava, J. the petitioner. Shri N.Naha Roy, Panel Law^erfor the State/ respondents 1 to 4. Heard on admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to work as Compounder on contracf basis in the year 1999 and she continued tiil the year 2004 whereafter, her servi<;es were discontinued whereas other similarly situated persons continued in sen petitioner has been making represe|ntations to various authorities but till date, the grievance of the petitioner has not b^en redressed. From the pieadings in the pei seven years. Therefore, oniy on th^ ice. He further submits that thereafter, the ition, it appears that the cause of action arose way back in the year 2004. Now, the petition is being flled by the petitioner after ground of delay, 1 am not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition therefo(e has to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed. However, the dismissai of tfiis petition shail not come in the way of the respondents in considering the cas^ of the petitioner at their own tevel, if they are otherwise willing to grant induigenc^. Sd/- Maaindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge