m S.B. fService Matterl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WRITPETITIONfS) ^O.^^V / 2011. ^ PETITIONER: ^^. ^..»- (LA-3^\^....'< "":.^ \e^>"" ,,v\ yy^c^ Sint.Garima Dewangan, wife of Shri Girdhari Lal Dewangan, aged about 36 years, working as Clerk, Nagar Panchayat Bhilaigarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. \v^' Versus Respondents 1. ^State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. / 2. Nagar Panchayat Bhilaigarh, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Bhilaigarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. r WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W^T^T^NT ^^7 ^TI^T^WF -??. 'S'ser "^iqKri^, ytii-i-f^Ko, f®ldl^l|,< ^./).^/W.2-^^5(2^ri1 *lM<»ll »*ll<st»•••••••••••••••••••••••••-••••••••••••••f----^^ 200 ^S^^^ ((ic<fl<sl<(^) ^iTOR ^fca 3TT^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moh*n ShrivasSava. J. 13-06-2011 Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, coun Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel cn advancecopy. Heard. Learned counsel for the pef was working as Daily Wage employment in view of the order dc sorutiny of his case as per memoj the case of Virendra Das Mani Chhattisgarhand Others (W.P.(^ vv?age employees have approach( apprehension of removal on the Court had direoted the authoritie^ individual as per the memo dafl petitioner's case is that the scrutjnized the case of the petitioi| 03-2008. On the other hand, learn^d petitioner has not completed 10 y( is not covered by order dated 10-( Msnikpun andl 0?fters (supr^). it appears thaf the petit oontinuance in semce in the light cy)NF<n<fli 'HTH^if ^f f^^ <FJ<^I< ^^W^ll^f el for the petitioner. .awyer for the State/respondents No.1 titioner submits that the petitioner, who En|iployee, has been discontinued from tted 22-09-2010 (Annexure P-1) without dated 05-03-2008. He submits that in ^puri and Others vs. The of ^)No.74SO of 2010), wherein other daily |d this Court aggrieved on account of t^asis of memo dated 23-09-2010, this to sorutlnize case of each and every led 05-03-2008. He submits that the r^spondent authorities ought to have ^er also in the tight of memo dated 05- State counsel pointed out that the ?ars of service, and therefore, her oase 2-2011 passed in the case of Virendra d)2 >ner is entitied for consideration for >f memo dated 05-03-2008. T 3iT^?T ^T R'lJob ^STsCTp ^wi ^w^r sb*<icr» Tuman^ ^ 'TSET ^i'4i<n^, ^>Til<-i<i(o, fcicni'H>4,< .\^1-.L^..^:^?.^1^1 'WI^n'^FRW"""""""*""""""""""""!""""^ 200 ^TI^T 'Rf^s' ('ici^<i?) In case, claim of the petitj oonsideration, it is for the petiti| concerned authority and the aut^rity is also entitled to consideration 2008 in the light of obsen/atio| Virendra and 2011. With the aforesaid observc Gbl^[<ri^)'1 'HTO^Jf ^f 'fe1^ ^^K ^'3tRTH3?1^T loner is that she is aiso entitted to suoh ^ner to make representation before the shail consider whether the petitioner |nd scrutiny as per memo dated 05-03- his made by this Court in the case of (supra) vide order dated 10-02- ition, the petition is finaily disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^lltlcfl^ ^sft^ ^uil^, <l^k<IM—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.