S.B. (Service Matter] IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 6 90! WRIT PETITIOMS) No. 12010. smGLE BENCH /, PETITIONERS: 1. Govind Ram, son of Maheshwar Ram ' Yadav, aged about 30 years, working as Waterman, Govt.‘Ashram School, Pakralbathan, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. . Bhukan Ram, son of Dundru Ram, aged about 30 years, working as Waterman, Govt. Ashram School, Kadamtoli (Gugri), Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. / 3. Banwari Lal, son of Mange Ram, aged about 34 years, working as Chowkidar, Govt. Ashram School, Madhupur, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Mansai Ram, son of Bishwanath Ram, aged about 31 years, working as Cook, Govt. Ashram School, Kamarima, Block Bagicha, District w V lJashpur, Chhattisgarh. , VCI‘SUS f. Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Tn‘bal Welfare Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (r 3. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. / @ (Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, / Chhattisgarh. 5. Block Education Ofiicer, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. WRITx PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w,?.Q$jtWw6W WW mm (Wu) 1M D .../............m Maw 4 ' mmm mmm mWWiiwm $3ffaum ISB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.[ 29.6.201 1 Shri C.J. K. Rao along wi Harish Khuntiya, counsel for t' Shri Vinay Pandey, Pane] Lawyer for the State. Loarned counsel for the issue relating to claim of con 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, 16 submits that the representati‘ decided after due veriflcation. After going through’the in w.P. (S) No.2004/11, it is petitioners are squarely cov Therefore, the petitioners a1 direction in the case. V is directe fresh representation before th< /. : Accordingly, it th Shri Akshay Yadav and Shri 1e respective petitioners. petitioners submits that the :ractual payment to Cook and :onsideration before this Court batch of petitions and after petitioners, this Court had ase in those cases. He submits s are covered by the aforesaid arned counsel for the State 3n of the petitioners would be order dated 15.4.2011 passed apparent that the case of the ared by the aforesaid order. e also entitled to the same d that if the petitioners make a concerned authority, claiming Wm 311%?!m (Wu) mmm *Z’f payment of minimum wage employee under the Chhatti‘ Appointment) Rules, 2004, thé accordance with law, Within a date of submission of repres adverse order, the petitioners petition afresh. m 200 WWW‘§WW 3mifémm s applicable to a contract ;ga.rh Civil Service (Contract : same shall be disposed of in period of eight weeks from the :ntation. In the event of any would be at liberty to file writ With the aforesaid dire ction, the petition is finally /_ Manindra Mohan Shrivastav'a dge disposed of. Sdl— E /W‘