v c ^ AsQ^^ ^i (^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR(C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.27.2:3.-b2006 PETITIONER ^•'-n0'-' <^''.^"^97L /• ^.-/-:'$?<^>'" ^^<^>'" .^••y>'"' ^>-" ({S"~ RESPONDENTS ^ o^ £, o -- Prem Raj S/o Late Shri Kritan aged about 54 years presently wrokingas permanent Gangman (P.W.D.) R/o Village -Bishnupali, Teh. Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh through its Secretary, PublicWorks Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) <"1. Engineer-in-Chief, PublicWorks Department, Near'RajBhawan', Distt.Raipur(C.G.) <B. ^3. Superintedning Engineer, PublicWorks Department, Bilaspur Division, Distt.Bilaspur(C.G.) /" 4. Executive Engineer, PublicWorks Department, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) V. j'?-?=a<•••^- ./ ^'~ f 5. Sub Divisional Officer, PublicWorks Department, Tahsil-Sarangarh, Distt-Raigarh (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AWRIT IN THE NATURE OF IVIANDANIUS. PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. ORANY OTHER \ORDERTO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER mpH COURT OFJUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETITION NQ, 2297 OF 2006 Petitioner : Preni Raj versus Resoondents ; State of Chhattisgarii aad ofhers Prescnt : Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Govenuaent Advocate for the responden.ts/ State. ORAL ORDER (4tt May, 2006} 1. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits fhat the petitioner was employed as Gangnaan in the year 1978 in the office of the Public Works Departanent, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner was appointed pursuant to open invitatiou of the appUcations and by selection ainongst the similarty situated persons. 2. According to learaed counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has worked for more fhan 25 years of service. Learaed counsel for the petitioner furfher subinits that the Madhya Pradesh Gangman Service Riile 1996 come into force from 1.1.1996 and as per Rule, the petitioner is entitled to regularization. 3. At this stage, leamed counsel for the petitioner subinits fbat the petitioner may be aUowed to inake a representation before fhe conceraed aufhorities to cousider his case, ia accordance with the provisions of law, to which learaed counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of wifh, above Uberty to make a representation, ifaay. No oider as to cqsts^ Bablu Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge