B8titBISisS«slIllag"T' BISB8S138@i^J ^^^y^K^^KII^ »1. !S sa ^s:ss^:& ^^^i%^;^':;' ^^®?^' KSSfts ^^^.;: ^SsSi-'^ ^fe;^^; ^S-'KSS3S Bli ala<fc IIIUIiJl SSIII SISil lllli !SI: IIiji N' VSSSSIsSSSSiS. *ISi®S8iSBIS!BS't ISiBSKfiBil® i'0 3MI i!i»i ' ^12.Pardeshi Varma S/o Itwsia-i. R/o village 85 post- Kesada, Tahsil-Siiiiga, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] </ 13.8mt. Khediya Bai D/o Bisnath, R/o village 85 post- Bhanfapara, Distt.- Raipur[C.G.] • 14.Samelal ' Yadav S/o Parau R/o village SE post- Kesada, Tahsil- Simga, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] ^lS.Ramhan Dhruv S/o Bhagela, R/o village Khairee, post- Gurra, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] / l6.Ram Singh Yadav S/o Shri Ram R/o village Khairee, post- Gurra, Distt.- Raipur [C.G.] ^ l7.Prahalad Varma S/o Kali Ram village 8s post- Deori, Bhantapara ^" ^v^ ipT"^ D^stt.- Raipu^C.G.] ^i^ f^ ^<%/^A L^'^ ^' ;^S^e ^^ $^ ^^^\^\^s t-' RESPONDENTS yy~, VERSUS l.State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretaiy Public works Department D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2.Engineer in Chief Public works Department D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 3.8ub Divisional Officer Public works Department Bhantapara, Raipur [C.G.] WRIT PETITIONLUNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 HIHWI SbHKsh 3's? •^IWId^, ®Tfl«'IS,Rtfiwy .^^^.O^l^j.^. 200 3ii^i 4^'*) (i^erfgg^sr) si^TERrf^tN; a^rsn^WsPtw f.r ^H^ SCT^TrftcfSn^T 4-7-2006:- Shri Sanjay Pate!, counsel f( IVtiss Dipali Pandey, Panel advance copy. Heard on i.A.No.6351 petitioner No.18 Ramadhar Varnf typographical mistake the name of atSr.Nos.8and18. The application is altowec^ Ramadhar Varma appearing at Sr.| Heard learned counsel for tlfe The main grievance of the| Gangman and working in the P(( years, even then they are not ground of equa! work and ©qual petitioner's case is that the erstwpi service Ruies for th®Gangman ^' Rutes, 1996 (forshort the Rutes, w.e.f. 1.1.96. As per these rule^ about 25 years shail be regul The petitioners have requisite petitioners moved representations] prayed that respondents be petitioners. Learned counsel for the are worklng sincs last 25 years i.^ are permanent Gangmen, thereforj larizeld 'owtfi'fl-t Kii<aTffte^t'<Ri<Ai< ^si^trsn^r tirthepetitioners. |Lawyer for respondents No.1 to 3, on application for deletion of th®name of |a on the ground that on account of Ramadhar Varma has been typed out and it is directed that the name of |No.18 be struck out immediately. {e petitioners on admission. Ipetitioners is that they are permanent jblic Works Department since tast 25 jing regularized and the salary on the is not being provided to them. The lile State of Madhya Pradesh framed js Madhya Pradesh Gangman Service [1996) and these rutes came into force the Gangmen who have worked for and salary wii! a!so be paid to them. <|ualifications for reguiarization. The but all in vein, therefore.it has been to regularize the services of the P|ay dire<tted p^titsoners submitted that the petitioners |. before 31 December 1998 and they ^, they are entitied for regularization as ^7. XI-HC-78 3^ '<IMIM<<, a-rflti'is, Rlrflti^ KTWTT Sh^lch W3[ 200 3ll^<l lath (4?l^d°f';l'ir) snisrwR'Hi* ^STT 3TT^T ^rrfcFi /' A Ban/e s^iraTHfscran^r —•. oer the Rules, 1996-but their cas representations made by the petitit Learned counsel for th< therefore, respondent No.2 be di petitioners are considered in accoi 1996 for their reguiarization to whi no objection. Having hear^ learned coui record and the Rules, 1996, withi of the case of each of the petition^ concerned Executive Engineer to| and to examine and scrutinize thel regularjzation in accordance with ofthe Rules, 1996. This exercisel 3 months from today. With the direction aforesaidt Consequently, I.A. N0.635Q; Parties are entitled for certil fi<<[<i<fl-< *ii*«'iT^iWI'<Ri+iii< ^ari^Tsn^r ^e is'not being considered in spite of iners. petitioners further submitted that, lected to ensure that the cases of the ^ance with Rules 5 and 7 of the Rules, ^h learned counse! for respondents has |sel for the parties, having perused the ut expressing any opinion on the merit rs, respondent No.2 is directed to direct consider the cases of fhe petitioners case of each of the petitioners for their iules, 1996, particuterly, Rules 5 and 7 should be completed within a period of the petition stands disposed of. '2006 stands disposed of. idcopyofthisorder. SdA 1 L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^/^p ^^ f ^) /• /-