“i IN THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Writ petition No. fg 200 ‘7 /1 Rajesh Dub, S/o Shri Babu Lal Dubey, age abou 30 yeats, R/O Sarkanda, BilaSpr u (C. .G) PETITIONER : ‘\ K Vs. state of hhattisgai’h Throu : The Sexrry Forest Departmet, Raipu,Chhattisgarh) (2) The Chief Conservator, Forest Deparent,-Raipur (C.G.) tm ivisioal Fores Offic, otin iion Dhatari, ) 'Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh. , RESPONDN EIS : (1) (3) (4) Khtha a Adhikari, orest Deartent Dhemtari, istt.— Damtari, (C.. ). F pm, (5) The Register, e itrativ Tribunai Principal Bench, abalpu (P.) 3mm pELITION UNDER AR TICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION AN APPROPRIATE EITIN THE NATURE 9f INDIABPOR ISSUE OE W' OE MANDmus/CEBTIORAEI DIRECTIONS IN d t ey Céy gh eta n r( Dn t er Prduco Divs, m as Gr D h G ; M.P. stat Admnise g»; e», Jr M. /monmIIION ETC. OE ORDERS on THE LIKE NATURE. 30.6.2003: Shri RM. Pandgy counsel or +11: pemione'r. '%/ Ms. Shnrmila singhai, Dy. 6A for the respondent/Siam. Heard bofh the counsel. i The pe‘ri‘rioner by ‘rh writ pe‘ri‘rion filed under Articles 226/227 of The Consfl‘lfullon o India has challenged *he order dafed 5.4.2000 passed by The M.P. 'la'le Adminisfmfive Tribunal whereby 'lhe original applicaiion filed b ‘rhe petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was dmittedly not appointed after August, 1992. The Tribunal was of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefits f the Government circular placed at annexure A-11 dated 15*” May,1 87 as well as the circular dated 9.1.90 as referred in the Newspape photocopy of which was placed at Annexure A40. The Tribunal as further observed in the impugned order that to derive the bene it of the circular dated 9.1.90 of the ary. for the daily wagers to be appointed prior to 31.12.1988 and to continue in serviae till the publication of the said notificat State 6overnment it was //’ \ i.e. 9.1.90. e s i QWWN..g m 200 ) mW (Wu) mm gm m WW?m § fgéW as aim m DIVISION BENCH: — HON'BLE SHRI K.H.N. KURA CJ' . & HON‘BLE SHRI LC. BHA X1~H€~37 g W 200’ mm (Wu) $3.5Id3W&WTaQ{ Wmm agai‘mm The perusal of The nbo meni'loned no'h'rwa‘rion reveals That The servires 0f only those empl yees are 1'9 be regularisad who were in service prior to 31-12-88 and confinuad in +he service Till 1he dn'te of issuance of ‘Hnaf circular Le. 09-01-90. Admi‘H’edly 1he pem’ioner was no? working on fhe date document fiied before ‘rhis Co r'I' as annexure P—9 reveals fhaf fhe pe‘l'ifioner was engaged for fem orary period in +he year 1986-87 and thereafter- ‘rill December 1989. efore, a'r The Time of issuance of ThaT circular The peTiTioner noT in service as such he was noT enTiTled for regularisaTion. In view of The discussion as above and The reasoning recorded by The Tribunal in The impugned order, vie are of The opinion ThaT The impugned order does noT suffer from any infirmiTy or illegaliTy and as such The peTiTion is liable To be d smissed. issuance of fhis circuhitr.) Even The v — r In The result The peTiTio hos no mbsTanoe and iT is accordingly dismissed Sdl- sw- 1 9: L.C.BHADOO €hief Justice iJudge