)9/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR: Writ Petition No. 167 1 / 1994 PETITIONER: Aseem Kumar Agrawal, Son of Shri. J.L. Aglawal, aged 3O years, Working as Sub Engineer in Bilaspur Development Authority, resident of 75, Rajkishore Nagar, A Phase II, Bilaspur. Versus ESPONDENTS: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through : Secretary, Department of Housing and Environment, . Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 2. Madhya Pradesh Vikas'Pradhikaran Sangh, Through : Its Director, Kaohnar Pariyayaran Parisar, E-5 Amra Colony, Bhopal. 3. Bilaspur Development uthority, Thxougki : lts Chairman, Nehru Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur. The Chief Executive onicer, Bilaspur Development Authority, Nehru Complex, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur. Shn' Manindra Shn'vastava, Senior Advocate With Shri Amtito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shli Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. and 4. Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for the Respondents No. 3 Single Bench; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agxihotri. ORAL ORDER (9th January, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agninotri,J. R A wz \ The petitioner was appointed as Sub Engineer on daily wages on 11.03.1986 (Annexm‘a P/ 2), by the then Bilaspur Development Authority, new Bilaspur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner has med this petition under Article 226 of th Constitution of India, praying that the petitioner be mgulalized with eifect mm his initial date of appointment as Sub- Engineer and also to grant him seniority and appropn'ate fixation of pay with effect from his initial date of appointment. The petitioner further prays that the petih'oner be granted the regular pay—scale from the date, even when the petitioner was working on daily-wage basis. It is informed that the petitioner has been Iegulaiized by order dated 25.06.1998(Annexure- R/ 1) with eEect from 27.03, 1986, At this stage Shn' Manindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner be” gianted liberty to make a Iepresentan'on to the concerned authorities i.e. Respondents No. 3 6r, 4 to grant regular pay scale w.e.f. the date from which the petitioner was regularized. Learned Counsel appearing fo the respondents have no objection to this submission. For the reasons stated above, the petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the ' respondents No. 3 8n 4, relying on the judgment and order dated 7.04. 1994, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.P. No. 2035/ 1990, and in that event, the respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to consider and decide " the representation,,if any, in accordance with lav, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the replesentation. No order as to costs. Certiiied copy, as per Rule y:an e r