1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION (Sl N0.^p€3 QF 2011 PETITIONER : Ramanlal Soni, S/o Bhaulal Soni, aged about 61 years, Occupation Choukidar in the Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Barrage Sub Division, Darri, District Korba (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS : ^ A^ -c^ ^x^ -<? 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). ^" 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Water Resources, Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG). ^ 3. Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Mini Mata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur (CG). ^ 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur (CG). ^ 5. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project, Rampur, Korba (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^. The petitioner, above named, most humbly and respectfully beg to submits as under: - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HON*BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITIKKBR DIWAKBR PBTITIONBR RE8PONDENTS W.P.JSt.NO. 2863/2011 Ramaiited Soxii versiis State ofChbatdsgarh Ofhers / , ^^ INNN*1^- Shri V.R.Tiwari, counsel for fhe petitioner, Shri N.NaIia Roy, P.L, for the State/respoxidents, WRIT PBTITION UNDBRARTICLB 226 OF THB COJ18TITUTIOW OPINDXA ORDER (12.07.2011) Grievaace of the petitioner in tiie preseat jxstition is ffaat after long litigation, fhe oxder was p^ssed ia his favoixr as a result ofwhich he was rciastated ia semce but he has beesi regalarized wifh effect fix>ni^|6.8.08 whereas he ought to have been regxilarteed wiffa effect fiom fhe year 1998. Contention of Shri Tfayari, coun^el for the petltioner la that fhe petitioner has also jSled representatiQji dated 15.07»2010 (Axiaexure P/6) but fhe said rcpresentation has not been decided aaid fhe purpose offiling tbis petition woiild be served ifat fhis stage dircction is issued to resp. No.2 for decidmg the pending representatioa of fhe petitioner, State counsel subnxits tliat let fhe petitioner mafee a fresh detaUed representation to resp. No<3 along wifh all the related documents axid in tuni fhe said respondent will decide tibie reprcsentation offhe petitioner. In view ofabovc, fhe petition is disposed ofvsdfh a direction to fhe petitioner to file a fresh rcpresentation wifhm fhrce we^ks j5x>m \^'i' ""•^sw^^v .. <2- ^ m f^^ today to tfae resp. No,3 and in tura fhe rcsp. No»3 to deciide the saine within fixrther period of fhjnee monfhs, It is made clear that this Coiirt has aot ^cpressed aiay opmioa on merits offhe case and fhe aufhority concemed would be at Uberty to decide fhe same m acconlance witfa law, Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge