HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4754 of 2005 PeSJtioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. e. Rajsndra Singh, S/o Gajanand SIngh. aged about 42 years, R/o Mostpftal Colony, Bshlnd Dsstrict Hostpsta', Durg. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretery Health Services, h4anrratay, D.K.S. Budding, Raipur (CG). Director- Heaitt^ Services, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Unjon of {ndia, Through - Secretory, yinistry of Health and Famity Welfare, New Delhl. DistricS ieprosy officer, Djstrict Durg (C.G.) Chief MedicsS snd HeaISh Qfficer, Durg. District-Dyrg (CG). District CoHector, Durg, District- Durg (CQ). SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Asnihotrj, J Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Advocate for »epetittoners. Shri S. K. Beriwal, Standing Counsei fer Shs respondent No.3. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4,5 and 6. ORDER (Passed &n this 21st day of March, 2007) The foSSowsng order of the Court Is passed by Satish K. Agnjhotri, J. 1. By this petitjon under Arti'de 226/227 of the Constifution of india the petitloner seeks to ehailenge the Segatity, vaSIdity and propriety of the order dated 1.8.2004 (Annexure P/2), whereby his servfces has been termmatecS, in view cf the order dated 9.2.2004 Issued by the Goyernment of Sndia, Directorate of HeaSth Servlces, New DeShI. with immedjate effsct. 2. The petitloner was appointed on the post of Driver vide order dated 4.1.1996 (Annexure P/1) under the terms and condifSons Said down in the said order. Thersafter, the petjtioner contlnued to work on the same post tiij the Impugneci order dafed 1.8.2004 (Annexure P/2) was passed. 3. Learned counse! sppearing for the petstioner, as welS as for the respondente submit fhat the facts and question of law InvoSveci in the present petltlon is sjmilar to that jn ths Writ Pstitlon No. 1794/2003 (Santosh Kumar Sahu Vs. State of ChhatSisgarh & others) Vifhich was disposed of vlde order dated 26.6.2003. whereln Jt has been directed that "$f the petitioner makes a representation within a period of one month from today, concerned authority shali SooR into the matter and if th@ services ofthe petitioner can be absorbed thsn they can consider his for absorption/apposntment.'* 4. In view ofthe above, this petitlon stands disposed of ^vith the dirsction that if the petifc'oner makes a representation to the concerned authorit/ within a perSod of one month from today, it shall conslder and decids tfie same on Its ov/n (Tien'te, in accordance v^jth law* within a reasonabSe psriod. If it is permilted to absorb She pstitioner. then he should consicSer hls case for absorptjon/rs-appointment in semces. Conseqysntfy, M(W)P No. 3844/2005 stands dlsposed of. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge