nt»- Cs'C- l'a.-< <6 ^<^^^ ..9^^ ^"^^."~S~GO..>-;"' < <p3 '<„ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. \32> OF 2010 RESPONDENTS , S •--/e'S^te j y i •i sw's f •/•••••-•••i '^ ^ APPELLANT/ :- Shekhar Manhar S/o Shri Darasram PETITIONER Manhar, aged about 28 years, Present address: Near Shiv Mandir, Ravan Mohalla, Village- Manikpur, Post- Manikpur, Diss- Korba (C.G.), R/o- vUlage Dabadih, P.0.- Koseer, P.S. SE Tahsil- Pamgarh, Disst- Jangir Champa (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Chief Conservator of Forest Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 4. The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.). 5. The Forest Management Committee Bhulsidih, Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHAmSGARH (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ) ACT.2006 Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure A/l) passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge (Hon'ble s?"^!1 /s ®?PES'f r", Bi.tBi'ew^g v fflGH COURT OF CHEIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Appeal No. 133/2010 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Shekhar Manhar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & other Appearance: Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, counsel for the appellant. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. Iffs^ssg'x, ORAL ORDER (6.05.2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2010, which is an application for condonation ofdelay in filing appeal. (2) Considering the facts and circumstonces in the case, delay is condoned. Application is allowed. (3) This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 19/02/2010 passed by the leamed Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 724/2010 dismissing the writ petition. (4) Leamed Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner was not appointed through any process of selection. We also feel that he was given temporary time bound appointment from time to time for three months, on tfaat basis he has made claim for reinstatement. (5) In his writ petition, he had prayed for a direction for payment of arrears of wages as well as for reinstatement. With regard to the arrears. he has also received the arrears. s's=5="— 5^, (6) With regard to the reinstatement, in tfae facts and circumstanees, the writ appellant has no right to claim reinstatement. (7) Therefore, the writ appeal is misconceived and dismissed at admission stage itself. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sdll- prashantKumarMishra Judge 1 BIS'!''iB!tSX