w my S.B. (Service Matter) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR EHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITIONS) No. é$9$ /2010. / x PETITIONERS: 1. Ku.Parvati Bai, daughter of Soner Ram, aged about 27 years, working as Waterman, Govt. Aashram Shala, Gutakiya, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. . Baljoo Ram, son of Mohna Ram, aged about 35 years, working as . Peon, Govt. Aashram Shala, Chatauri, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. . Navasaj Ram, son of Madhuram, aged about 27 years, working as Chowkidar, Govt. Aashram Shala, Chatauri, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Balkishun Ram, son of Heera Dhar Ram, aged about 3O years, working as Chowkidar, Govt. Sayukt Aashram Shala, Kandora, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. VCI'SuS 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 Department, Jashpur, Chhé‘ttisgarh. ' . @y G\ 4. Coll¢ctor, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. /5. Block Education Officer, Block Manora, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE TITUTION OF INDIA ,w N CONS WW {90 w.?@~x<’5maxm .m1 200 am m- (Wu) WWW ammm mmm WWW1§Eém $aif‘a'qm [SB : 'Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.] 29.6.2011 Shri C.J. K. Rao along Wi Harish Khuntiya, counsel for t] Shri Vinay Pandey, Panel Learned counsel for the issue relating to claim of conl other employees came up for ( ’in W.P. (S) No.2004/11 and examining the claim of the directed consideration of the c that the case of the petitioner order. On the other hand, le submits that the representath decided after due verification. After going through the in W.P. (S) No.2004/ 1'1, it is petitioners are squarely covr Therefore, the petitioners ar direction in the case. Accordingly, it is directe fresh representation before the th Shri Akshay Yadav and Shli 1e respective petitioners. Lawyer for the State. petitioners submits that the :ractual payment to Cook and :onsideration before this Court batch of petitions and after petitioners, this Court had 1se in those cases. He submits s are covered by the aforesaid arned counsel for the State )n of the petitioners would be order dated 15.4.2011 passed apparent that the case of the :red by the aforesaid order. e also entitled to the same d that if the petitioners make concerned authority, claiming XI-HC—7 8 g\ Tumane payment of minimum wage s applicable to a contract employee under the Chhattia’garh Civil Service (Contract same shall be disposed of in period of eight weeks from the accordance with law, within a date of submission of representation. In the event of any would be at liberty to file writ adverse order, the petitioners petition afresh. With the ’v-aforesaid- direction, the petition is finally disposed of. Appointment) Rules, 2004, the Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Wm W 206 WW<Wm