ywi "qiqirt«,y-rf|<H<i4, Rrii<Hy<< m^^m^"^"^--^^^.. ^ an^?T CR^ ('j^fg^) W^ 200 3ii^?r®Tfertw cisir9lrt?ld)*< ?^iTI!R^rfl(T3II^?T W.P. tbl^fd^l^ 11<4cil"^fet3 <R|+(K ^3lf^T3n^?T (I No.6680 of 2008 PETITIONBR Respoadeafcs Versus 1. 2, 3, 4. 5. Dam^a Kumar Tiwary S/o Shiv Shaaker Tiwajy @ Vijay Shaaker Tiwari, 39 years, residjent of Near Madpara Mandir Madpaia Kaw^rdha District Kabirdhain (CG) Stat^ of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, Dep^rtinent of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur. The IPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forest, Areiitya Bhavaa, Medical College Road, Raip|ur (CG) The IConservator of forest at the OfBce of Dui^ District Dvsg (CG) The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division- Kaw^rdha, Distnct-Kabirdham (CG) Vija^ Luniya son of Shri K.P. Limiya R/o worl^ing as post of peou at the ofBce of the Divifeioual Forest Officer Forest Division Kaw^rdha, Distt. Kabirdham (CG) Sur^sh Manikpuri son of shri D.D. Maijikpuri, R/o working as post of peon at fh.e lofBce of fhe Divisional Forest Officer, For^st Divisiou Kawardha, Distt. KabmUiam (CG]| Writ petitloa under Alticte S.B. Hon'ble Shri DhfaendrapWishiaiJ 01.12,2008 Mr. Ajit Siagh, counsel Mr. Arun Sao, Govt ^dl 226/227 ofthe Constltutlon oflndia. for fhe petitioner. ?ocate for the State. Grievauce of the petitiojaer iu fhe instaat petition is that he was working as daily wage worke^ in the of5ce of Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division-Kawardha snkce 1990 aad he was removed fi-om that ^SSSS'Q'Ss: fs!yasl%. ^g^^"^ XI-HC-78 >dT"i •^l^ino, t»-CTl-<i<is,Rwitiyt -^— (L.a.p-oi^sy^^____ iracCT^TW •-^••-•^•—^•^••••-^- ^200 gn^?Tv ('jciijd^) aii^icprR-iicb ?raT3n^?T*<ii* ^] s^arw •yRd SII^^T 2- hlas work on 29.2.2000. The St^te (Annexure P/2) had directed) cases for regularization of 4 continuousty up to 318t Dec^ to constitute a Scrutmy' (( petitioner for regulanzation Learned counsel for fht prcssing this petition at this ffle representation for redres^ No.3, who may be further Circular ofAtuicxureP/2 Mr. Anui Sao, leame^ subuuts fhat in case the respondent No.3, for considered aad decided by wifhin . a pcriod of six represcatation. In view of above fhe instaat petitiou is dispos| fesh representation before raised in fhis pctition. On s| shaU be considered and decii) iu fhe Ught of Circular of Anjne from fhe date of receipt of fh^ «Ri«i(n<IliiiinT^T ls-<3 •(luit^i'! ^srt^Tsn^sT vide Ciroular dated 5th March, 2008 the various departinents to consKler fhe ill fhe dafly wage workers, who worked :ruber, 1997 aad they have been directed toumuttee. However, the case of the not been considered. ; petitioner fiirther submits that he is not stage, however, he inay bc given Uberty to al of his grievaaces before the respondent to decide fhe saiae in the Ught of lia a specified period. Govt. Advocate appearfag for fhe State files a fi?esh representation bcfore of his gricvance, fhe same shall be respondeut No.3 in accordance wifh law finin fhe date of receipt of the dtrected witbia pe1|itioner redreslsal wteks submtssions IfcS of tearaed counsel for the parties, sd ofwith Uberty to fh.e petitioner to file a espondentNo.3 raising atl Iite grievaaces iich representation beiag m.ade, the same ^ed by respondent No.3 on its own inerits nexure P/2, wifhin a period of six weeks representatiDn. ^ i, • ! ill Bu ;p,;,to