li /^, 03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION N0. 3^1 <P /2005 PETITIONER R.K. Gautam, son of Shri Brijkishore Gautam, aged about 50 years, resident of Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) /jk/feESPONDENTS yi'y y .^\/ -^ f: ' '^ "<^^ ""^^'•-Kte^sS^^' VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through - the Director, Indian Medicine System and Homeopathy, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 2. -The JDistrict -^sxvs^. Officer, Bilaspur, Distt, BUaspur (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA ,^i.- r XI-HC-22 3^r '<(i<(i<n<(, y>T{1'y<i<o, i^diy^< 3ll^l^51<*» WWW8W1W"""""*"""" ^H[ 200^ f^<)<4 48 3TT^T^T f^iTO^n^r fcF^cT Sb*11<t>^ •/s- ^TI^T^RTTW^cT 3.8.2005 Sfari Alok Bakshi, counse] Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Paxie|l on advaace copy. IJLN0.6230/200S This is an application f<| taken up on Board. This iaterim W.P.No.3218 Heaxd. Learaed couiisel for petitioner is working on fhe ^ Bflaspiir. He submits fhat h<\ 1984 but his services have nol to fhe docunient^ Axuiexure PN| written by fhe Directorate (Homeopathic), Distnct-RaipiuI Distdct Ayurvedic OfiBcer, relation to fhe petitioner for fh^ Learaed counsel for f^e document, Anaexure P-6 whic^ same has been written by fhe| to the Director, referred to obc^ upon by the Directorate. He P-6, pointsNo. 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 application s|tands disposed of. ?hi^T<rt41Ti ^i^<nT^tel:^'<fa<^i< ^^Tf^TW^T for fhe petitioaer. Lawyer for fhe State/rcspofldents ^r ui^eat hearmg. The matter is fljie petitioner submite that tfae k>st of Unajii Chikitsa Adhilcaii at is woridng on fhe saki post smce been regularized so far. He refers -15 which i8 a tetter dated 3.8.2002 of Indian MediciDie As^)Ciation to fhe SupenntendeAt(Assistaci^, caUiag upon some querries io. purpose of his regixlarizatioii. ^e petittioner furfher refers to fhe is a memo dated 2.9.2002-and tie 1 District Aymvedic Officer, B^spur w m response to fhe querries caUed liakes me to fhe docuinent AanartiTO ffae aforcsaid querries^and submits Bila|spur XI-HC-22 3^ ^TO^FT, ^rftWT?, ^TBy 3ii^i^?ict» *<l*<dl(h*<i<h'fw"r*.'<**'r<'*9't<*t'^ 200 f i^^' 43 an^r^r f^rW3?T^T sWW^fgcT 3n^r^<nw^T ••2-- ?hi<il^<fl^ *il^<rtT^te^<R|^dK ^3:I^T3T1^T that all fhe rcports ealted by ll^e department were replied in favour of tfae petitioner and fherc app^ars to be no adverse report ^aiast of&ce of fhe department, fhe of tihte petitioner has not been Leanied counsel for rcpresentations filed by the aad subimts fhat none of fhe f which, the rcgulEuizaticm of fhe fhe petitioner oa the b^is 4 petitioner caa be obstructed. In view of fhis matfcer, jleamed coiiasel for the petitioner submits fhat even aflber receivii^g ofthese documente fix>m fhe iG^al ter of regularizatk)2i of the service by fhe State. petitioner ftufher refers to maxiy ytaoaer to fhe concenied authoiity ircseatations have l»eendedded by the concenied aufhorily and ^he sendce of the petitioner has not been regularized so far. I have gone fhix>ugh fhe of rcgularizatfcon was ioitiatetj fhey have not taken final d< recoxds offhe writ petitioii and have also heaxd fhe arguments advjaaicwl by fhe leamed <x)im.sel fiw fhe petitioner euid fhe State coun^eL It appears to xne fhat a process by the State in fhe year 2(X)2 but &ion m the matter so far. In fhe facte aad circum^tances ofthe case, I do faeieby direct that fhe petitioner if so advi^ed may file a detaifcd reprcsentation along wifh a copy of fhte o^der and a copy of fhe vndt petition beforc the concemied aufhoijtty wifhm a period of 15 days fix>m today and if such a represen1|ation is filed, tfae conceined aufhority shall examme fhe saxne andjif tfae matter of regulanzati&a af thc /petitioner has not been fi|ialized so fer fhen fhe coflcemed XI-HC-22 3:53T '<||*(|<1<|, t?Tn««|<p,(elcll^y ^i^?i<!r> NWdTtftHlcn u.-.f...^lS. w^ 200 r Sn^r^r f^Tw^n^T Sb<4|cb^T"f?cT K.^- ^r^tey 'r' ^, ^n^r ^mw^n^cT |on fhe represeiitatk>xx filed by tite 4ionfhs fi?om fhe date of filing of titie aufhority wfll take a decjsion petitioner within a period of3 representation. If aoy decision has been brough.t to llie notice of| aufhority shaU apprise fhe fhe Goveiiiment, Wifti the aforesaid obsei|vations, fhe petition stends finaHy disposed of, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge a3read(y been taken and tihe same has not jfhe petitfoner, fhen fhe conceraed pe+itioner wifh fhe decisioa takexi by cM<<l<n4lTt w^if^ te1^ <Ri^i< ^3rf^T3TI^T (^^f^) ^•^