14 SS.MS IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0 .l.so-^.../2006 PETITIONER Ghadilal S/o Late Shri Dingar , Aged about ^s year working as Gangman Department of P.W.D.R/o Kosir, Tah. Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) T' RESPONDENTS / VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C;G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Superintending Engineer, PublicWorks Department, Bilaspur Division, Distt.Bilaspur(C.G.) /^4. Executive Engineer, PublicWorks Depari:ment, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. ORANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER IF'-S^ BS 1^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitipn No. 1305 of 2006 Petitioner Ghadilal Versus • Rcspoudents State of Chhattisgarh aad others Sin^le Beach : HonTile Mr. Justicc Sattsh K. Agaihotei. Shri. Sameer Behar, counsel for fhe petittioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Depuly Advocate General with Sint. Anju Ahuja, Govenunent Advocate for fhe respondents/State. QRAI^QRDER ( 25*h March, 2006) The foUowing order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnthotri, J. The petitioncr has filed fhis petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India on the grozuid fhat even afler coinpleting 25 years of service, his services havc not been regulanzed. Counsel for the petitioner submits fhat the petitioner is serving as Gangmaa since niore fhan 25 years. He has ffled copy of Service Book. He subnuts that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized under the Gangmens Service Riiles, 1996 (Annexurc P/2) and the Circulars dated 9.4.2003 (Aimexure P/3) and 3.9.2002 (Annexure P/4). It is pointed out that representations as per Armexure P/6 were made coUectively and the same is pending. It is also poiated oiit that saine persons have been regularized. Leamed couasel relied on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in fhe case ofThe Worhmen of Bharkunda CoUiery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The Maaagement of Bhnrkunda ColUery of M/s. Central N\ Coamelds Ltd. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 452. He referred to para 19 and 27 offhe abovc decjsion. 3. Leamed State coiunsel pointed out that the representatfon submitted by the petitioner is pending and fhe same wUt be considered and decided. 4. Having considered and without expressing any opinjon on fhe inerits of the case, in the opinion of fhis Coiirt, for ffae present, euds of justice will be served if a direction. is given to fhe petitioner to make a detaBed representation afresh raisiag his grievances before the respondent No. 2/Enguieer-in-Chiefalong with a copy ofthe petition and ttiis order, wifhin fhree weeks froin today, aad on such representation beiag filed, the coinpetent authority offhe respondents shatl decide fhe same on its own inerits in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within three inonths from the date of receipt/production of fhe represeatatfon. It is made ctear that if any grievance remaias, the petitioner may avafl the remedy, available under the law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, fhe writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Rules. ablu Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge