(^ '^ ^.h^^J^ ^©i^ O'aiis^a^ ^^^g^?;,p: ,.r?D19 /2011 Rajeshwar Giri Goswami S/o. Shri Tulsi Giri Goswami Aged about 35 years R/o. Ward No. 9, Bazarpara P.0.: Lailunga Dist.: Raigarh (CG). ^/sy y^^ ..^' .^y./ '%'~ ^?" 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department of General Administration, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. --''State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretaiy, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, <"The Commissioner, O/o. The Directorate, Urban Administration and Development, Raipur (CG). The Chicf Execudve Officer, Municipality of Lailunga, Lailunga, Dist.: Raigarh (CG). As shown above in the cause title. As shown above in the cause title. c>^^ ~'<i'. llcil ^f'^U^- ^e^y •"yf 3II^T^H1^IW ^qTSll^T'aillj.t, wv' d-°4 "4i'4i<n4, anly'iia, fsjcii<-!^< _^, t0.f'C5^<A®.s&f<)/'l an^l W^ (ipfgq^E;) TOiiwafta sii^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mdhan Shrivastava. J 16-06-2011 •?iN?prt^•qnaf•?ftia-rfSre^T ^T3iRpT35I^r counfee Shri N. Naha Roy, Shri Y.S. Thakur, State/respondents No.1, 2 anc The grievance of the petition is that even though ih, poiicy dated 5/3/08, for cons| one tjme measure, in comp| Court in the case of Secreti ^el for the petitioner. |Deputy Advocate General for the 3 on advance copy. ^etitioner, as ventilated through this writ fe State Government has come out with a jderation of cases for reguiarisation as a |iance of the directions of the Supreme kry, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi(3) and others (2Q06) 4 SCC 1, the case ofthe petitioner is not being considered, even 31/7/96 as CIerk on temporar^ Learned counsel for th^ poiicy of regularisation, the sen/ice, in view of the decisl Uma Devi (Supra). Prima facie, from the claiming regutarisation on 4 on temporary basis against a| circular dated 5/3/08 (Annex^ that the State Government h^ in limited number of cases as| though the petitioner was appointed on basis. petitioner submitted that according to the setitioner is entitled to be regularised in on of the Supreme Court in the case of ileadings, it is seen that the petitioner is basis that he was appointed on 31/7/96 regular and sanctioned vacant post. The ve P/3) of the State Government shows come out with a policy of regularisation per the judgment of the Supreme Court in -FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. ^ + ;&^ .-s^' 7BT SII^I *t<i<* Deepti 'S^ -^WIVi^, WT\[WI<c, ls!t11<-l;l,< (<9 . f. (s) i^-o .3c,(^ 3:n^?'Iraqr(1pf3^?) TOnwHffasn^r -5- claim for reguiarisation shail be strictly, in accordance with the policy of i the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (SuprgO. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner deserves consideratit>n. Accordingly, the petitiojier's considered by respondent No.' regularisation dated 5/3/08 an^i the case or Uma Devi (Supra). It is made clear that thisl the merits of petitioners claim With the aforesaid off. fbr obselrvations qa^fepft;T tiiHdl''? ?si& <Rii<ii( ^affimsn^i Court has not expressed any opinionon regularisation. the petition is flnaliy disposed Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ^ Judge wu'Qii SlAl >li;"ll<ai, -FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. +