c^ 1<?-2> S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRITPETITIONfSlNO.'Sfi^l /2011. ^^ PETITIONER: KevraBai.wifeofJohatRam Nirmalkar, aged about 41 years, working as Sweeper, Dr. B. R. Anibedkar Govt. Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents <v.. .<spy ^yy ^M ^ 't^r w-\-.' /\\.- ^/?''"... ^wy ^:'' ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health and Family WeUare Departm.ent, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Medical Education, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 37 Joint Director cum Superintendent, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Seuitram Sahu, Sweeper, Dr.B.R-Ambedkar Meinorial Hospital, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh. ^ 5. SmfcPoonam Gajbia, Security Einployee, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Meruorial Hospital, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 311^1 ^I CiW^ si^si sh^i^ <4isa T3 •ait'Mld'1!, ^^•y'lti. fslMI<11< 3?T^?T TRT^ •^.^,(£)^.Z<S3/2-^t( s\' 111CTI <ShW*l ^ 200 ••••••"••••"••••••"""""" fN^ST""""""" SB : Hon'ble Shri IVIanindra IVIohan S Tumane 13-05-2011 Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, counsel f^i Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer f(( on advance copy. Heard. Grievance of the petitioner as 4 though, the State has come out wi| 05-03-2008 (Annexure P-1) has been i^ entitled for such consideration in the ligl Court in the case of Secretary, State o| Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4SCC1, considered. He further submits that th< appointed after the petitioner, have bi 03-09-2008 and 22-09-2009, collectivel^ submits that later on, the State Governnl 15-02-2011 (Annexure P-2) to all. th| exercise of consideration of cases of rei Taking into consideration the sut for the petitioner, it would be proper consider the case of the petitioner in Supreme Court in the case of Secrefa/y, Uma Devi (3)and Others, (2006) 4 SCC and 15-02-2011 (Annexure P-1 & P-2). In view offoregoing, the petition +l'i|Ii'i''4l-f'Inwff^1®^t<[«i<$i< •^; siPaH sn^i rivastava, J. the petitioner. the State/respondents No.1 to 3 it out in the petition is that even th a policy of regularization on ;sued to regularize those, who are it of the judgment of the Supreme Karnataka and Others vs. Uma ;ase of the petitioner is not being respondents No.4 & 5, who are ;en regularized vide order dated filed as Annexure P-4. He further |ent has again issued a circular on departments to complete the lularization. 'lnission made by learned counsel |o direct the respondent No.3 to |the light of the judgment of. the |Sta(e ofKarnataka and Others vs. 1 andcircular dated 05-03-2008 (ands disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^^k^^^-^^^ ^.^^^^^^^^ h