s-\QQ{ IN THE HIGH COORT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.<^?~^J> /2006 <> <b PETITIONER ^^cV^ ^?^ ^" ...•-• ^•-irf^"^.-- ~^'^SL--""" ^••"'\\^"r\l.y~ ^^^^ / SUSHIL KUMAR PANDAY S/o Shri Umakant Paaday Aged about 33 Years, R/o Awas PIot, ViUage Karkapal Post Hatkochara, Block And Tahsil Jagdalpur. Distt. Bastar. (Chhattisgarh) s<<. A®^" VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ •f'^^'*:^.. ''.•S't si'»'J^S.. <s's^ >..i,?/ .? <„:•''., ^" ?-SSi^ L06";^ ^ /• / State OfChhattisgarh Through Special Secretaiy Environment and Town Developinent department. D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Ralpur. (C.G.) Collector Bastar Jagdalpur. (C.G.) 3. Coinmlssioner Municipal Cprporation Jagdalpur.fC.G.) 4. ChlefEsecutive Offlcer iMa Panchayat District BasV&r Jagdalpur. (C.G.) WRIT PBTmoar UBDER ARMCUB 226 /aa? OF T^C conrsnnmQti op ninu> JFOR TJBB i^i»iic»or DtRBCTKM!l(St OR OSDaKR (81. XI-HC-78 *ll*ini sh*ll<ft 359T3(raRT!T, ttTflwis, Iqeiray ^^ .u^^.^.^^ks 200 3<l^!fl 4sl<b (ittfl'Kii1!') 3ti^!r?>rR-<i* (I8lT3fi^i aiim 13.e.2006;wn'WBfla'sn^ *i<ifd41-f •<i*<<-fTffts'<II <Rit<i< ^aiRtffsn^T •s- Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel ft}i Shri Satish Gupta, Dy. G.A. t^ and2. Heard both the counsel. The oase of the petitioner js Panchayat Karkapal, Blook Jagdalpu^ March 2005. However, the area of| herein, was expanded and Gram of Municjpal Corporation, Jagdalpur ap the cireular the emptoyees of all the the Munteipal Corporatlon, Jagdalpur.l have already been absorbed. Wherj respondent No-1, the petitioner Annexure-P/7 but nothing has been Learned oounsel for the petitic No.1 te direoted to decide represenf counsel for the respondents has no obj Having heard learned oounsel facts and cireumstances of fte casel representation of the petitioner in the Muntoipal Corporation, Jagdalpi period of 30 days from today, in accori directed to decide regarding payment With the direction aforesaid, th( Parties are entitled for certified the petitioner :es notioe for the State/respondents No.1 Pan|chayat nlade dche regardipg df |that he was working as Secretary, Gram and he was performing his duties till 2 Municipal Corporation, respondent No.3 Karkapal was inoluded inthe area |long with four Gram Panchayats. As per Cfram Panchayats were to be absorbed by Except the petitioner, other employees the petitioner was not absorbed by the representations Annexures-P/4 to so far. (ner submitted that therefore, respondent Itation of the petitioner to whioh tearned •lection. |for the parties and having regard to the respondent No.1 is directed to decide absorption ofservices ofthe petitioner |r as per the Government Policy, within a r(iance with law. Respondent No.1 is also salary of the petitioner. petition stands disposed of. <;opy of this order. L.C.Bhadoo Judge