IN THE COURT OFHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRITPETITION N0 /.^.'r(S(.../2006 /J. PETITIONER Budhram S/o Shri Bhojram Ram, Aged abou<~'48 year working as Gangman Department of P.W.D.R/o Daokijor, Tah. Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^ '••' .* ^^ /.cy\y .<<;;<. .l" ^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 3. Superintending Engineer, PublicWorks Department, Bilaspur Division, Distt.Bilaspur(C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer, PublicWorks Department, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) *<- WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF IVIANDAIVIUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. ORANYOTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DQ JUSKCElbLrUEM&rFEfi— HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No, 1308 of 2006 Petitioner Budhram Versus Respondents Statc of Chhattisgarh and others Sin^e Bench ; Honlbte Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnUiotrI. Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for the petitiouer. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Siat. Anju Aliuja, Qoveminent Advocate for the respondents/Stete. ORAL ORDER ( 25th March, 2006) The foUowing order oftfae Court was passed by Satisli K. Agaihota-i, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that even after coinpletmg 25 years of service, his servfces have not been regularuKd. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the pctitioner is serviag as Gaagmsn siuce more thau 25 years. He has ffled copy of Service Book. He submits fhat the petitioaer is entitled to be regillarized luider fhe Gaagmen's Service Rules, 1996 (Annexure P/2) aad fhe Circiilara dated 9.4.2003 (Aanexure P/3) and 3.9.2002 (Annexure P/4). It is ponitcd out that representations as per Annexure P/6 were inade cotlectively and the same is pending. Jt is also pointed out that saine persons have been regularized. Leamed counsel relied on a decision ofHon'ble Apex Court in the case ofThe WortaneB of Bhurhunda CiolUery of M/s. Ceatral Ctoalfields Ltd. Vs. The Manggement of Bhnrkunda ColUery of M/s. Central ^ Coalfields Ltd. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 452. He referred to para 19 and 27 ofthe above decision. Lcamed State counsel pointed out that the representation submitted by fhe petitioner is pending and the same witl be considered aad decidcd. Haviag considered and wifhout expressuig any opiaion on ttie inerits of the case, in the opmion of this Court, for the present, ends of justice wiB be served if a direction is given to the petitioner to make a detailed representation afresh raisiag his grievances before the respondent No. 2/Engiueer-ia-Chiefalong with a copy ofthe petition and this order, withia three weeks froin today, aad on Such representation being i3ed, the competent authority ofthe respondents shall decide the same on its own merits ia accoidance with law as early as possible preferably within three months fiom. the date of rcceipt/production ofthe representation. It is made clear that ifany grievance reniains, the petitioner inay avail fhe reinedy, available under fhe law. Wifh fhe afonesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs, Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Bablu