HEQH CQURT QF CHHATTI$$iAx§QH gig? RELA$FUR Eon7§a§e Sim H.L. Daiiu, CJ. $ing§e §ench : Petitianem Writ Pe€§t§an N9. Q85 OF 1§§1 . Udhoram Sam) Son 0f Thanuram Sahu: Time-Keeper, ‘ R DA: Resident of Para3magar, Raipur, Tahsi! and District Raipur(M,P,) ’ Kamkesh Kumar Mishra, S/o‘ JP. Ivishra, Time—Keeper, R. DA, Resideni of Nayapara: Raipur, Tahsii and Di$t¥ict Raipur (MR) DevashESh Bhadudi son of SK, Bhadudi, Time-Keeper, RDA, resideni 0f New Shantinagaa Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur‘ Shivkumar Dewangam, Slo; HK, Dewangan, Time—Keeper, RDA, Resident Gf Kankaiipara — Purani-Basti, Raipur, Tahsii and Disiriot— Raipur (MP) Jagram Dewangan, son of Ramoinaran Dewangan, Time keeper, RDA. Resident of Sanjay Nagarj Raipur‘ Taneii and District Raipur (MP) Naresh Kumar Miehra‘ S/o. VP. Mishra, Time-Keeper, RDA} Resident of Nayaoara; Raipur, Taheii and District Raipur (MP) Rajkumar Awasthy, eon of 8.8. Awast‘ny, Time-Keeper; RDA Resident of Banipara Purani-Basti, Raipur, Tahsii and District Raipur (MR) Yunis Dani, son of Sheikh Huesan, Musier— Clerk; Resident of Nehrunagar: Raipui; Tahsii and Dietrict Raipur MP, Ambadae Kot‘nekar, eon of MR. Kofhekag Pumpman‘ RDA. Resident of Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsii and District Raipur (MR) Ganesn Ram Sahu, son of Knorbanara Ram Sand. Pumpmari? resident ofShankar Nagar, Raipor, Tansii and District — Raipur {MPJ \ I Afjai Jussain son of Shabir Hossa n: Eieotrician. RDA. Resident of Teiibandna‘ Raipur‘ Tansii and District Raipur (MR) (J'i l\ CD Subhash Singh Thakur Slo Jainandam Singh Thakur, ‘Eieo’triomn', RDHAI, Resident of Telibandha Raipur, Tahsi! and DEstrict Raipur {Ix/LP) REspOMentg m v Raipur Devebpment Authmitv. Raipur, through its Chief Executive Officer. The Government of Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary? Housing and Environment Department Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal ORAL ORiiER (Passed on ’HEE April, 2067) The petitioners are working as time-keepers, must clerks, pump—men. electrician etc. with the 15‘ respondent, Raipur Deveiopment Authority which is constituted under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973‘ initially; they were working as contingency employees and thereafter it appears that their services were regularized on 23.1 .1990, subject to the approval of the State Government. 2. While working as regular employees, they were served with yet another order dated 22.01.1991 canceiiing the earlier order passed by the respondents regularizing their services. Aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the petitioners were before this Court. 0) respondents for creation of posts etc. For disposal of this writ petition that prayer need not ‘oe taken note of by me. it appears that during the pendency, of the writ petition the 15’ respondent sometime in the year 1995 has .itioners. inview cf the development as on IBQ r The other relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the u Petition under Articies 226i227 of the Constitution of india for issuing an apptopriaie writ, or direction or order in the nature of the writ etc. Present: Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioners. Shri BF. Sharma, counsel for respondent Not. ioday, the first rehef sought for by the petitioners would not survive for consideration of this Court, 4. The petitioners have aiso t’iied an appiication for amendment in the prayer portion of the petition in the said appiication they have requested this Court to direct the respondent to pay eatary of a regular employee for the period 22.1.1991 to 1§95. ,.. amendment need not be considered by me. ti for any reason, the petitioners are of the View that they shouid be paid saiary payable to regular emptoyees for the period 221.199”: to t995, they should make appropriate representation before the 15‘ respondent seeking the aforesaid relief. and if for any reason, that representation is not oonsi erect by the respondents, then only the cause of action woutd arise for the petitioners to approach this Court for the said reiiet. in that View of the matter, the application for amendment is retested. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to make appropriate reoresentation before the 13‘ respondent for appropriate reiief. tf and. when such representation made, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with iaw. Ordered accordingly. or In my View, that prayer of the petitioners made in the appiication for 5. in view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of. r sw- i Chief Jusu'ce , .