BEN IN THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR rCHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETITION No.: - 2'^3-s _/ 2006. S.B. PETITIONERS: - y \.-" <? A^'" /^fK/ '..•"' ^'; Y*..-'' f-yy ^- ^ y ^ ^'^•h^'^.s^ ^y l'%€2y ^^f-^-^-' CLE^ ^ £R&^4ILAS-' ^,D£-' 11. Narayan s/o Shobharam, Age- 49 Yrs. R/0 -Khairabhata-Mahasamund, Dev Prasad s/o Pusau, Age-48 Yrs. R/0 -Club-para, Mahasamund, > ^Q3. Naththu s/o Dular. Age- 53 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Tumgaon, 04. Chandan s/o Rajau, Age-51 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Chingrawd, 05. Lakhun s/o Preinsingh. -^ Age-48 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Shh-pur, Neturain s/o Ghasirain. Age- 51 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Chingrawd, 07. Khaditrani s/o Potiram. Age- 47 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Khatti, 08. Sint. Shanti Bai D/o Ganshayam, Age- 56 Yrs. R/0 -Shankar Nagar, Mahasamund, 09. Chintaram s/o Pusuram, Age- 54 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Joba, Tumgaon-Mahasamund, » 10. Jainsingh s/o Ganhshyam. Age- 54 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Shirpur, 11. Madansingh s/o Parasram. Age- 54 Yrs. R/0 -Village: -Jalki Tumgaon, 12. Shivgovind s/o Parasram. * Age- 47 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Shirpur, 13. Suresh s/o Manihar. Age- 48 Yrs. R/0 -Village: -Shirpur, 14. Manirain s/o Danaji. Age- 48 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Shirpur, ^' ^' ^" 15. Indal s/o Manohardas. Age- 55 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Khatti, -2/- 16. « K ^. '"- '^ ^'17. 18. 19. 20. 31. ^22. 23. 24. ^ 25. ,26. 27. 28. ^ Mohan s/o Rainlal. Age- 51 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Chingrawd, Kholu s/o Derrha. Age- 50 Yrs. R/0 -Vmage:-Labhra-Khatti, Mahasamund. Shyainlal s/o Vishal. Age- 49 Yrs. R/0 -Village:-Chigrawd, <k. Devanand s/o Parsuram. Age- 48 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Tumgaon, Fhirtu s/o Narad. Age- 48 Yrs. R/0 -Village:-Shirpur-. Baldakachar, Manshrani s/o Jethurain Age- 52 Yrs. R/0 -Village:-Birkoni, Puran s/o Kamtaprasad Age- 55 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Birkoni, Kanhaiyalal s/o Kheduram Age- 55 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Birkoni, Heera Singh s/o Saniaru, Age- 55 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Shirpur, Itwari s/o Sonuram. Age- 54 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Chingrawd, Chunurain s/o Jagat. Age- 55 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Joba-Achola, Jeewan s/o Prabhu. Age- 50 Yrs. R/0 -Village:- Tumgaon, Bhaiyaram s/o Mangalrain Nirmalkar, Age- 52 Yrs. R/0 -Village- Kharora, All working in the Post: - * Permanent Gang Man, Labour (Mazdoor) Kushal/ Ardhakusahl/Akushal/ -Shramik ), In the Office: - P.W.D. Sub-division Mahasamund Section No.l, Tehsil 85 Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) -:VERS U S: - RESPONDENTS: ^"1. The Stateof Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Work Department, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, RAIPUR, Distt. RAIPURfC.G.) 2. ^3. The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department At Mahasamund, Distt.:- Mahasamund, ( C.G.} The Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Work Department Sub-Division Office-At Mahasamund, Distt.:- Mahasamund, ( C.G.) WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE i6 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIQN (S) OR ORDER (Sl. XI-HC-78 *11*fWISb*lieb ~SS( -^WM^, w!\w\6, Rx'iiyy ri^.^f3..^.-.^^ ^; 200 Sii^i'i >ia«n(yi31!«<ir) wR-ii* l(W3Sn^?Ts^H ^TaraKi^Tsn^T 7.7.2 Shri J.A. Lohani, Advocate Miss Deepali Pandey, Panet advance copy. Heard. The main grieyance raised are working as oangmen in Publi| that they are entitled for regulaj of C.G. (5angmen Service Rules considering the cases of petitionj 1996. The co.se of the petitione^s i.e. labour, (Mazdoor) of Public Works Department, working since 1974-75 on the Raipur issued memo dated 7.4.; Sub Divisiona! Officers & Executil supplying the necessary inforr|ii completed 25 years of service, regularization of their ssrvices. memo dated 20.4.2006 and pri< *i''<Fci<fl-f iii^TffFs'4 <R]«K ^a.rf^iT.an^T for the petitioners. Advocate for the respondent/State on jn this petition by the petitioners, who c Works Oepartment, Mahasamund, is •ization of their services as per Ruie 7 1996, but the respondents are not srs as per Rules 5 & 7 of the Rules of olc is that they are working as Sangnnen 1/Shramik in the office Division, Mahasamund and they are post. The Chief Engineer, P.W.b., >, 20.4.2006 and 6.6.2002 to all the \e. Engineers for preparation of tist and of such gcngmen, who have as per format, for the purpose of The S.&.O. submitted the list vide to that in Ihe year 2002, but the Kushal/ArdHiakushal/Akushal Silb stme 2006 nforrhation ^' XI-HC-78 sn^srqirR^ich c< in^?Ts»iH!°ti r^ Roshan/- y\^°t/-^ •^' 3^'qraRra', aTTI+i'is, t«t<'iiti^< *n*TT'fTSb*11<t> ^[ 200 Sii^fi lacn (ylg^'i6!') ?Ttiraiflf?tr3ii^?T 2. respondents are not consider regular-ization of their services Learned counset for the j: the petitioners is limited to directed to consider the list da' appropriate orders as per Rules for the 5tate has no objection. Accordingly, respondent petitioners examined in the ligh covered under the Rules of accordance with law within a p^ receipt of this order. With the direction afore^ Consequently, M.(W.)P. N^ Certified copy as per rui^ w<if<n<fl-i *iiiciTfffetA<Rl^<l< ^aff^irsn^T ng the cases of the petitioners for naccordance with the Rules of 1996. ietitioners submitted that the prayer of the extent that respondent No.l be ted 25.4.2006 sent by the 5b0 and pass of 1996, to which learned Panel Lawyer ^o.l is directed to get the cases of the )• of Rules of 1996 cnd if their cases are .996, then pass appropriate ordsrs in ;riod of three months from the date of aid, the petition stands disposed of. i.2524/06 also stands ctisposed of. Sd(- L.C. Bhadcso Judge