.Ce.p.M-IjC-e. MftTTE^ •^: £^r^A_ /TSS^ESSS_^t3S£L£SS'BISeaswSiB-SS.'BEt.SStiVR ( (S.Q^l ••asiT pETmeH^a. T7 /S)Q6. ssTsnffis& i^^^ ^li^ '.^MK-'\riW ^^ ^'".A^ y. '•v^.--"' y Paras aan Pafcei aoa ef la€e:> <—' Shi-a Ca'ihe<3Bran,,?atel aged .absEi.t 33 years* presentty worislng as WatphaaB (CtiowKidar') tCbllector Rats^l iforlia ©rafe yfc ' : •• ! GoSci»a.,\K-»dA^d. ~S fcrest ' Bivtsionfl %rest Eepartmente ^&—-' . ' ' . . , . • .. .. Bi.stri.et (go^K^C CS'G.) JEJ^IIS- ..r ^ ^ /^: '^M^ ^y -°c o' ^ fj v 13 'rhe.Stafee o£e^.atkisgajSa.S Thaaagh I'fc*s Seere-t;ary»i Ibrest .D^ariaen'fe^ 'B^SSSS^ BulIdlBg aaApar' (C.©.) 2.J The Chlet CbaserVa'bor ef^ Rarest*! •arraaya atavan^ . ..Ra.^o:r.(:G.i(3gl : ; ,.. • , - . ^ 3S Bi'Kt-sAonaa. iHaa^s'b Offlcer^ . Katghors Sbresfc &i.wlsitoaB : Kat^ibra Msttl'gKoFba ( G.S^)'.' 4B. ,CbHser^al%r,6:jE; Ba.restiS'^'. Silaspar CIrea.®Blstrlct Bilasgar (Gi.'O.'^g' . ., • •„ •J®T3a:T®_ai@SGB''MEEraiE228/227 eS'.THE'£BNStlTBTIQ& ; AyrKiBi&'aBKissHWT^es^oE^.apeaaesiteE^^aieaa.BBSR •'^S,'Baa8E?®3^^S-'Efeeg»\^::'••;••, .^ ^ ^- • The petit^aer^'rateed^-a^vs'g --\. xespeetfia.Ily fcegs''to':ail»i-I.fclas.QBaer8,' • ' .. ;.^ ^ %' ^. ^3^ <$ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATnSOARHiBILASPUR . Single Bench: Hon'ble Slui Satish K. AgnUtotri, J. W.P.Mllo.48TOof2006 Petitioner : ^Paras RainPatel Viersus Respondent : Tbe State of Chliattisgarh and others Shri Sanicer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. , Sbri Susbil nilbey, Govt. Advocate for the respondeats. (Stb Septcntber, 2006) 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner siibiaits tliat the pctitioner was appointed on 28,11.1994 as daily-wager and bis eilgageiaent is continning. 2. The petitioncr has ffled thia petjtion praying for a reKef of rRgularization ofhis semce. The case oftfae petitioner is fhat he vyas appointed as daity wagervide orier dated 28.11.1994 (Annexure' P/2) oii compassionate groiind, thoiigh as pcr the circular of tbe State Govenunent dated 10111 Jzuie, 1994 (ADnexurE P/5) coiitaining instnictions for pnwiding appointment on coinpassionate ginund, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on regiilar pay scale. 3. I^eamed counsel fbr t.he petitioner fiirtlier subinits that thepetitioner may be allowed liberty to niake a detailed reprRsemtatioD to the concemed anthority for redressal of his grievancf and the concemed authoriit^ inay be directed to consjder and dcGide the rEipreseTitation wifhin stTpulaterl period, to which leamed counsel for the respondents has no objectun. 4. Having lieari leamerf connsel for t1ie parties, having regard to tbe facts and circuinstaTices of the case and witl-iout. expressing any opinion on merits of tTie case, the request. inade by leamed counsel fbrthe pctitionerisjust, fairand rRasonable. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed to inake a detailed representation, raising aU hfa grievanees anne-idTig a copy ofthe writ petitiori and itsaDnexiires to the concemRd autliorilywitl'imaperiod of ten days froin today anfi 2 iThakur the concenied autborily is directed to ^decide the representation wifhm one inonth froin the date of its receipt after considering the ppints raised by tlie petitioner, in an objective nian.ner, on its own mcrits, inaccordaTicewitlilaw. 5. WitTi the directions aforesaid, the petition stands disposedof.No order astocosts. f „:,, i 1 SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1