13 1T .^"i^r~tTT'*"1S'~S 'TTSdA T . i Satish Kumar Patel, Aged - 32 years, S/o Sliri Janak Ram Patel, Preseiitly working as - Fan-ash At - Govt. Hr. Sec. SchooL Urba, District - Raigarh, (C.G.) R,/o Village - Budiya, Via - Tanuiar, District Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretar}', QepazttRent of Tribal Caste & Schedule Caste Developmeat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Ths Coimmssioner, Depai-tment of Tribal Caste & Schedule Caste Development, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Pt. R.S.U. Canipus, Raipur. 3. The Collector, Tribal Caste & Schedule Caste Development Department, Raigarii, District - Raigarh 'l ^, •^••J-} 4. The Assistant Conmiissioner, O/o. The CoUector, Tribal Caste & Schedule Caste Development Depai'tment, RaigaA, Disti-ict - Raigai'h (C.G.) 5. The Prmcipal, Go\t Higher Secondai-y School, Urc lock- Tanuiar, District - Raigarh (C.G.) WMT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTmjTION OF INDIA ',: Hon'1 i^f^^ £~t Preseat: ShnR.K.P^esham'ani, Advoeateforthepetitioner. Sliri Satish Gupta, Govermaent Advocate for the State/respondents. (Passed oc 13 day of Febi-uary, 2008) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia seekms a direction to the respondents to regularise the semces ofthe petitioner on the post ofFarrash. The brieffacts, m nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wages employee (Farrash) on 30.10.1996 (Arjiexiire P/l) for 89 days. 2. The:lereafter, the petitioner was reguiarized on the post of Fan'ash in the rsgular pay scale ofRs. 2550-3200/- in accordance with law, vide order dated 01.05.2000 (Aimeaii-e P/2). 3. The order, regularizing the services ofthe petitioner was caacelled and 4. ^- -). t&> tlie sen'ices of the petitioner was tenninated vide order dated 31.05.2000 (Aimexure P/3) on the ground that only those daily wages employees were eiititled for regularization wfao were appointed prior to 31.12.1988. Later oa, by order dated 06.09.2000 (Annexiire P/4) the petitioner was intimated lo join his duties on the place and post where he was workina. Pureuant to the said order dated 06.09.2000, the petitioner is contmuing ia service as daily wages employee (FaiTash) but no regiilar wages, as per the pay scale is being paid to the petitioner. Learaed counsel for the petitioiier submits that the case ofthe petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bencfa of this Court passed in the case ofBhagwat Prasad Yadav Vs. State ofC.G. & Others {2006(1) C.G.L.J. 472} and he prays that the similar order may be passed in the present petition. Leamed counse! appearing for the respondents/State are 'not in a position to controvert the subnussions as they are ofthe view that the order uapugned herein.is not ia accordance with law. A.ccordingly, tais petition is allowed wifh a direction to the respondents to consider services of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with tlie directions given by the Division Bench ofttes Court in the case ofBhag^vat Prasad Yadav (supra). No order asto costs. Satis.u^boui Ainit ludge L.