.1.2^fc:^^ ^y^g^- i.—-•'•*"' //!// EVTHEmGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPURfC.G) ' W. P. (S) No.306 ^/2011 PETTTIONER ^ : : Pawan KumarPandey S/o Ramayan Prasad Pandey, aged about 32 years, C/o Durgabada, Shiv Chowk Kududand, Bilaspur(C.G) VERSUS REPONDENTS 1. State of C.G. Through-Secretary Forest Dept. D.K.S.Bhawan,Raipur(C.G.) 2. ^ChiefConservatorof Forest Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) /'„....,„ „„„ 3. Divisional Forest Officer Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTION QF EMDIA Petitioner begs to submit as under- 1. Particulars ofthe Petitioner: As shown in the cause title. 2. ParticularsoftheResDOndents: As shown in the cause title. 3. Particular oftheorderaeainstwhich this Petition is made: Being agrieved by the action of Respondent whereby Respondents ignoredfhe seniority of the Petitioner andnot considering XI-HG—78 sn^y ^>T l<!ii+ W y^S jht< fliwtT a»*<r<ss -S^ '<iW\V\*<, Sitll'M'IS, Is|<'11'M4,< . ^.f.C^Jtn.'^cro'^/^irll T"""""'wi 200 3t^T '^W: ('^fy^f) ?^nw ^ifta •aii^i SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 15-06-2011 ShriS. P. Kale, counsel forthel Shri Sushil Dubey, to 3 on advance copy. Heard. By this pet'tion, the petitioner| case for regularization on the submis^i dailywage employee since long. Learned counsel for the pet|tioner decision taken by the State Governnjient the judgment of the Supreme Coi| Karnalaka and Others vs. Uma O+i petitioner is also entitled for regul similarly situated employee-Ajit Kum^r Court has issued a direetion for going through the pleadings and petitioner is similarly sjtuated to that of Under these circumstances, 1 directed that the case of the petilion|er circular dated 05-03-2008 and thejucfcment Secretary, State of Karnataka an^ (200S) 4 SCC 1, after making necesj records. With the aforesaid direction, thfe CM!<tfi?t4li Nm^if'^ Fsl<l <i^^i< «K3iRi*Ta;n^f hrivastava. J. petitioner. Governmei|t Advocate for the State/ respondents No. 1 ihas prayed for a direction to consider his pon that the petitioner has been working as •\ submits that in view of the policy vide circular dated 05-03-2008, after Irt in the case of Secretary, State of ^vi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC i, the 'at-ization. He submits that in the case of Pandey (W.P.(S)No.3006 of 2011), this iitleration of his case for regularization. After cjocuments, 1 found that the case of the 'the case ofAjit Kumar Pandey. tm inclined to issue direction. It is therefore n|er shall also be considered in the light of of the Supreme Court in the case of Others vs. Uma Devl (3) ancf Others, sary verification and scrutiny of his service consitleration ^ pet'tion is finally disposed off. Sd-/ ManindraMohan Shrwastava Judge