(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR(CG) Seva Lal Soni S/o Shri Sadhu Lal Soni, age about 42 years, R/o Durgabada, Shiv Chowk, Kududand, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS State 0f C.G. Through-Secretary Department of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Conservator of Forest Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (C.G.) Divisional Forest Officer Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) /’2. 0/; , m2 QD W. P. (S) NON” /2011 PETITIONER ,/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA M? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 3EM : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA “mus; N0. 4519g20n PETxTxowER Seva Lal Sam RESPONDENTS State. 0f{LG, 8r, Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTXON OF INDIA Appearance: Shri S.P. Kale, counsel for the petitioner. Shn‘ A.V.Shn’dhar, P.L. for the StatE/ respomknts on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (1 1.08.201 1) Gricvance of thf: petitioner as vent'lated through tms petition is that though the petitioner was employed as daily wage empioyee~ Chowkidar with effect from 1.3.88, his services were not mgulan'zed and the respondents have stopped taking work from him. He submits that now the State govexnment has come out with a: policy dated 5.8.08 under which the daily wage employees who were employed g prior to 31.12.1988 are bemg regularized. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under this policy not only those who are continuing on daily wages have been regularized but even those daily wage employees who have been appointed prior to 31.12.1988 but discontinued have also been considered for regularization but the. case of the petitioner has not been considered and regularized. On the other hand, State counsel submits that. the policy dated 5.3.2008 does not in terms contemplate consideration of those employees who are not in service. Whether those employees who have been discontinued are also to be considered for the purpose of regularization within the ambit of circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure P/ 5), is essentially a matter to be considered by the State Government. However, the policy requires to @ be uniform1y followed. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s gn'svancc alld take appropriats decision according to their own policy strictly in accordance with the judgment of the. Supreme Court in the case of Secretmy, State of Kamataka 85 Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision adverse to his interest he would be at libexty to take recourse to the remedy avaiiabie under the law. The decision with regard. to the case of the petitioner may he taken by the‘resp. No.2 as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of six months. Sd/— Manindra. Mohan Shrivastava Judge