HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT.BILASPUR !SB : HOK?BLB SHm JUSTICE PR2TSNKBR DIWAKER W.P.fSl N0. 3016/2009 PBTITiOISBR Maaoj Choudhaiy, S/o. Late M.Chaudhan/, aged about 41 yeai's, State Coniputer Prograiam.er, office of Directorate, Esiiployiiient aiid Tramhig, . BajTaa Bazar, Raipur (CG) resident ofA/12, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar Raipur CG REBPONDSHTS Wersua 1. IIIIIIIKI^ State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the Secretary, Maapower and Plaanin.g Departiiient, DKS Bhawaa., Raipur (CG) 2. Secretaiy, Departaieut of Maapower aiid Plaiinm.g, Goverament of Cliliattisgaili, DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) 3. State of Madhya Pradesh, trhough fhe Secretaiy, Department of Maapower ao.d Plaaniag, Vatlabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) 4. Prmcipal Secretary, Department of Industiy aad Emplo}?inent, State of M.P. VaUabh Bhavaa, Bhopal MP WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF 2NDIA AppearaBce: Shri Ufkarsh Verraa, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Dy. A.G.for fhe State. ORALOiiraBR (29.06.2009) With tiie consent of fhe parties, the niater is heard fiLnally. •^ '^-^f' 'ii^»sis^ ^ Grievaace of the F-etitioner is fliat he aiong wifh four oib.er persons had llled origmal application befbre the M,P. State Adm.in.istrative Tribunal, Jabalpur seekiag regularization on the post of Coniputer ProgramBier. Subsequenfly th.e said case was transferred to the High Court of M,P. after abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal.'Vide order dated 16.1.2006 (passed iaW.P. No. 7523/2003) directions were issued to tfaie respondents to coiisider fhe case of the pe^titioners for their reguladzation wifhni a period of three raonfhs jfronx the date of receipt of the order. It was further directed fh.at the order shall apply only to th.ose petitioners who are workiag ia the State of M.P. lu fhe case of fhe petitioner, no order was passed as the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the review petition was also dismissed by tihie M.P. High Court. However, fhe tiberty was given to tixe petitioner to approach the High Court ofC.G. Coutention ofleamed counsel for fhe petitioner is fhat he niay be permitted to fsle a fresh represeutation to fhe respondents aad in tum, tihe said representation is directed to be decided within soiae tmie fraiiie. Learaed counsel for the state subioits fhat the fresh representation, if niade by the petitioner, would be decided stdctiy ia accordaace with law. In the eventualily of the petitiouer's maknig such representation withia tliree weeks froni the date of receipt of tliis order, tlie saine would be decided by the State Govem.inent wifhia a fiirther period of one 33iouth, from the date of receipt of fhe representation. Wifh fhe above observation, the petition staiids disposed of. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge