Itbbj^le ife^(iy&& iEi^ OT^ ttlfa filtBje ^ Is^lte; {•[t&) i£&lEla) ^aSkyh Bl'fe^) •& Idlt 'hlbft lfU*]bJ &h 'tiofcib.fthE' •£ (•k-e) >Tit?i> 'lilb^ l&^t^j 6h hlAI^IAIb.ft Ifel^lla.ft •S (•l>-e) >T;M> - bteb •filr^-^ h.iau<.f>/iiiti!^j hiy^..ii^>*jbj &b bfjft B>1tfi - &IS hiy& sifft|iu» -T A^S. ini.byt.ie S>^b) (•h-fi) >'R»i»l»]— IUlh(h'yh Mt.b] &h fcSlt hlfet^ l&^yi^j Kh. tblAlla.fthP - hlAlbl* (ifcUfcyii 21&) bA ttWk l^s l&hj ^ib. e^ Sus 'Mysia - ZOOS/-•••••.•'ifeUt[6^hJ^—, '^fn^hW^ ::, .'. : ..: (•It-fi) '&bSt SI^Sa& - hia^ie ifeb)lfe& kSSi l^tbslt fc^l-Ut Slt& ^ <bbytp / 49) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETtTION (S) N0. 461 1 OF 2005 PETITIONER Sadhram RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'bteShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.K. Thomas, counse! for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 11th day of September, 2009) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counse! appearing for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as Bull Attendant on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, the service ofthe petitioner was regularized by order dated 21-7-1986 (Annexure - A/2) on the post of Peon; The serviee conditionsof the petitioner is govemed by the cireular dated 18-8-1993 (Annexure - A/3) for grant of incremente. 3. The State in its return submitted that the petitioner has been granted increments after regularization on the post of Peon vide order dated 21-7-1986. 4. It appears that thecircuiar dated 18-8-1993 contemplates grant of arrears to the ad hoc employees aiso. !o the light of said circuiar ttie respondent-authorities are directed to consider the ease of e petitioner. If there are subsequent circulars and instructions, the same may also be considered while passing the order, in accordance with iaw and on ite own merits, as earty as possibte preferabfy wlthin a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. 5. In view of foregoing, according to learned counsel for the petitioner nothing survives m this petition for adjudication. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^. '.i-•••^^^M-?1^3^i