c S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(S) NO.E-(^Ll l /2011. PETITIONERS: ,^7 .^<-' ^<K/^",..-^ ^%^ •y:...-"^^ ^' 1. Basant Lal son of Kadara Sai, aged about 37 years, working as Waterman, Ashram Shala, Rangapat, Bagicha (Sardhapat), Block Bagicha, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ^- 2. Hemant Kumar Yadav, son of Tunuram, aged about 35 years, working as Watennan, Ashrarn Shala Rangapat (Sardhapat), Block Bagicha, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. S. Dubraj Sai, son of Girdhari Sai, aged about 38 years, working as Waterman, Ashram Shala, Pattakela, Bagicha, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Departnient, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpiic, Chhattisgarh. <6<"' 5. Block Education Officer, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (^^ ^ HIGH CX31URT OP CHHATnSGARHI_AT,BILASPiyR SB,:HpN?BLESHm,JUSTICBPmTiaEKBRDIWAl€BR W.P.(S1NO.,4341I2011 PBriTIONER Basant Lal & Others Vcrsus RESPONDENTS State ofC.G. & Otliers raoiA Appeaysmee: Shri C,J.K.Rao, couiisel for the petitioners. Smt. Smita Ghai, P.L. for the Slate. ORALORDBR (05.08.2011) Ck5unsel for the petitioners aubmit that tiie issue relating to claim. of coiitractual. paym.en.t to Cook aB.d ofher em.ployees cam.e ii.p for consideration before this Court m W.P.(S) No. 2004/11 aad W.P. (S) No, 5772/10 aiid bunch ofoth.er petitions aBd after exa,m,ii2ing tiie claim oftlie petitioners, tb.is Court. h.ad directed/coiisideratioii ofthe case in fhose cases, He subiaits tliat the case of the petitioxiers is covered 'by tlie aforesaid ord.er axid tlierefore d.irectio-j:! be issued for deciding the representatioii ofthe petitioners also,. Couasel for the State siibinits that th.e representatioiis of the petiti.on.ers would be decided after d.ii.e veri.fication m. a.ccordan.ce with. law. After going through. tlie order dated 15.4/201.1 passed ixi W.P.(S) No. 2004/11 aad order dated 29.6.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5772/ 1.0, it appears that the case of th.e petitioiiers is covered by fhe aforesaid orders, Therefore, fhe petitioners are also entifled to tlie same directioii isi tlie ca.se. Accordingly, it is directed tb.at if fhe petitioners xnake fresh. representation before th.e coacersied aiifh.ori.ty, claiming payme.nt 'of ^ V:t^y "^^^ miaimu-ai wages appUcabIe ' to a contract employee uiider fhe Chh.a.ttisgarh Civ.il. Service (Contract Appoinfcoi.eiit) Rules, 2004, th.e sam.e shall be.disposed ofin, a.cconl.axice with. law, witMa a perio.d of eight weeks froni the. date of submission of reprcsente.tion. In. the event of axiy adverse order, fhe petitioners woiild be a,t Uberty. to. fil.e petitiou afresh, With the atbresaid direction^ the petition stands disposed of. It is niade clear that this Coiirt has not .expressed any opiniion on the ments of the ca.se aud tlie a.uthori.ty concerD.ed, wou.ld be at libert5r to decide the representation. strictly m. accordaiice witb. law. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge