1 /\ ,^ 1 <,J ^ IN THE HON'BLE H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(S)NO. <$33<^ OF 2011 PETITiONER ^•^ I'l^.--'' ..• RESPONDENTS Smt. Rudrani Diwan, aged about 52 years, W/o Late Shri Chandandhar 4,' ^..- ^>'"" ,..•''" Diwan, R/o Civil Line Simga, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban administration & Deve!opment D.K.S.Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Joint Director Urban Administration & Deveiopment, Subhash Stadium, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Municipal Officer, Simga Nagar Panchayat Raipur (C.G.) WRST PETSTJON UNDER ARTJCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTSTUION OF INDSA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR SB : HON*BLEMR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER PETITSONER R.B8PONDENTS W.P.fSI.NO. 6330/20X1 Smt. Rudrani Diwan versus State of C.G. 8s Others Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. forthe State/respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OP INDIA ORDBR (21.10.2011) Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though she is working as daily wager since 1991 but till date hers service has not been regularized despite the policy decision of the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier she had filed W.P. (S) No. 6154/2010 in which she was permitted to file representation and direction was given to the authorities to decide her representation. He submits that the petitioner made representation on 2.11.2010 vide Annexure P/19 but till date the same has not been decided. He further submits that in contempt petitionp this Hon'ble Court has given liberty to the petitioner to flle a fresh petition. State counsel submits that the representation of the petitioner, if already not decidedy would be decided within time frame. Accordingly, the present petitlon is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the resp. No.2 8s 3 along with the copy of this order and in turn the said authority will decide the representation with a period of two months from the date of receiving the same. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law, considering all the aspects of the case. ________——- Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge