BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.lS) NO. T (0‘ {b 7/ OF W mo ‘\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER (/4 :~ Mrs. Pushpanjali w/o Bedan, aged about 42 years, occupation~ Daily wages employee relating to work of cleansing sanitation,conservancy,c/oPresiclent of C.G.Karmchrisangh,Safai Kamgar prakosth,Rajnandgaon, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :u 1.’§£ate of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Town Administration 86 Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. havan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. TheMunicipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon,Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, ‘Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH BILASPUR (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) ’ Single Bench Hon ble Shn Satish K Agmhotn J Present .- Shn Sudhrr Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Pane! Lawyerforthe State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 4‘“ day of February, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties Being aggrieved by the actlon of the respondent Munmipal Corporation to remove the ‘daiiy wagers pursuant totthe memo dated 23-9-2010 (Annexure — P/1), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to continue her sen/ices as daiiy wager and to take steps to reguiarize her services. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the similarly situated cases came up for consideration before this Court and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court allowed those writ petitions by order dated 20-1-2011 passed in Dhaniram & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1 and other connected matters. ln the identical issue, the Municipai Corporation, Rajnandgaon, represented through Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate. ‘After hearing all the parties, the order has been passed. The issue is one and the same and, as such, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dhaniram (supra). In view of foregoing, this petition is also allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in Dhaniram (supra). There shall be no order asto osts. c Sd/-' Gowri ‘WP (S) No.6798 of 2010 (decided on 20—1—201 1) Satish K. Agnihotri Judge t WRIT PETITION (S) NO.682 OF 2011 PETlTlONER Mrs. Pushpanjali Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another