^'A.E's-'^ t EE^Pt A: ^ so S.B. fService Matter) INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION(S) NO.%Z<S 3/2009. PETITIONERS: ..^ ^n-y^ ^•^"/ '.<t^-/ (^':V>" ^ //^^ ...•••:^^- •!??'".J'''' ^.:~ ^' ^'^- /' 'v''" ,'s''' ^" 1. Prem Sai, son of Putru Ram, aged about 38 years, working as Gangman, P.W.D. Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mahabir Ram, son ofBhiin Sai, aged about 41 years, working as Gangman, P.W.D. Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Budram, son ofJhunu Ram, aged about 43 years, working as Gangman, P.W.D. Division, Dharanijaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Public Works Departinent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh, Division Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3. Sub Engineer, (Sub Divisional OfBcer) Public Works Department, Dharmjaigarh, Sub Division Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UPIDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^— Rf:! a'^.^-' E_B ^-f^.t ^P'^T' rfn^;!*° if^ !_££_£^l *^"I"*1^^B^-S.J HEGH COURT QF CHHATTJSGH A f^'S Ol^ ^fsS^.yt ^-•^i^ ^fl K('"t'^l^l'fflL ^!">?^»e^l^'^h^' F^t»t*?'''«l^;ffiiii*^ ^n^iit wi. ^ysiEU^ re"'i'jijga^^6r uiwciiis?!^ Ls"-;:£- Of&fr^? "sj^ r'^e.^u VERSUS •^ Sai and others. State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri C.J.K. Rao counse! forthe petitloners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG and Smt. Smitha Ghal PL for the respondents/State. ir»M With the consent of the counset for the parties, the matter is heard TinBity. Sy this petition the petitioners are not challenging any specific ordsr but are seeking impiementation of the circular dated 5.3.2008 of the State Government reiating to regularization of Daily Wage employees. Counse! fc-r the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition with iiberty to make representation to the authorities concerned. He also seeks a direction to the authorities concerned to decide. the said representation expeditiousiy. To thls prayer ofthe petitioner, counsel forthe respondents/State has no objection. Accordlngiy, the petition Is dismissed ss withdravi'n with iiberty as aforesaid. if the petitioner makes a representation v.'ithin a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy or' this order, the same v/ouia' be decided by the aufhorities concerned w-ftffin' a further period of three months frcm the date of its receipt strictiy jn accordance vvith !aw. it is made ciear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on fhe merits of the case and the authorities concernec' would be st iiberty to decide the ssme strictiy in accordance with !avi?. _ ____-— Sd/- pririnker Diwaker Judge ^