C^ 1 ^__ THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (81 No. 330^ /201 PETITIONER(S) ...• \'s'' .••• --^..k'^^/'.!--1' ^'//V-r"\ v-'f" 7.^^^vb->"- .^.'^v^-" ,/ ^^•y^ ^^'v^•" RESPONDENTS Dileshar Yadav, S/o. Shri Chhedilal Yadav, aged about 36 years, R/o. Kasturba Nagar, Ward No. 04, near Ramayan Yadav House, Bilaspur (C.G.) • VERSUS ^-'" (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Departraent of General Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (2) Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, through its Comniissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 THE CONSTITUTION OF """"^T.,. \ -^ '^ •^'1 •^.J'./^s'^'^ yy XI-HC—78 3^S ?il M'=h wii sii^i grqra? -+ •^-Sf ^|A)|d'4, "^ly'is, Mdi^y ^^^...,..L/'..|O..CU.3.^.fi..y/./..( 3ii^?r'lws' ('^f3°f^) ^mW^lfeTSH^I ISB : Hoa'ble Shri MMiindr4 27.6.2011 Shri Vinod Deshinuka Shri N. Naha Roy, P^iel Law7yer for the State/respondent No. 1, on advance copy. Heard on admission. This petition has beer) non-consideration of his cad State Govt. ctrcular dated 5i Supreme Court. in the ca.se Ors. Vs. Uma Devi $3) & 0?4 Leamed counsel for th petitioner is entitled to regi employees jimiors to him ha regtUarized and earlier, wril due to his non-regularizatioi with liberty to file represents and the reminder sent, it h order has been passed. The petitioner has pla promulgated by fhe Stat ' (2006) 4 SCC 1 •^iqtBriSq TfiiRfl if -ff^ tfSre^n ^siRmant?! counsel for fhe petitioner. ffled by tlie petitioner aggrieved by e for regulari-zation, founded on the 3.2008 issued aft.er judgnient of the rf Secretary, State of Karnataka & s petitioner submits that though (he ilarization as number of dailv wage ^e been regularized, he has not been petition was filed by the petitioner ji wMch was dismissed as wiftidrawn {tion, even after representation made ^s neither been considered nor anv i|:ed on record policy dated 5.3.2008 Govt.. for considering case of XI-HC—78 ^WM^, 0Tlly!6, "fa^l'M^ sn^iv. h4* Wiisii^rgnw Pra.veen, a;n^i'cra^' (' ^roiwaftTT 3(i^i z- regi.ilarization as one time m^ bv the Siipreine Court m| •^iiWNtirR?fl •S -fe^ <.^^i< ch sil^tantn asure in conipliance of order passed the case of Uma Devi (supi^). Therefore, the petitioner jiaving made representation, fhe respondent No.2 is required ^o consider the representatlon in fhe light of the Govt. policy. Therefore, it would be| appropriate and expedient m the interest ofjustice t.o direct r^spondent No.2 to consider tlie case of the petitioner in the light ^f circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the judgment of tqe Supreme' Court in the case Vma Devi (supra), and take a|)propriate decision on petitioner's representation within a reajsonable period not exceeding four (pt of copy of this order. |this Court has not expressed any opmion on the merits of fjie case. The respondent authority months from the date of recd It is made clear that would be at liberty to take d^ the light of the judgment o| scrutinv of fhe service record ;ision in accordance with law and in the Supreme Court in the case ot' (supra), aft.er ^naking necessar^.' verification and 3 of the petitioner. With the atbresaid o^iservations, tfae petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- • i Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge