f-^f- 7<^s Sl»'i£!'@Bsnel'i :'"-®9i3 ;u 1 ^;; i^F !i-^'^i'8 Bi •4?? FS E! IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] N0. ^Q)^^ /2011 PETITIONERS; ^y/ ^w"". ^^ ^-^v ^j;y .{:°' 0<--'' <&"^-"' i^- ^ 1. Sandeep Verma, son of Late Ambika Charan Verma, aged 41 years, Occupation-Service, presently working as Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C6), resident of SB-5, Sri Sai Vihar, 6uru Teg Bahadur Nagar", New Purena, Raipur (C6). 2. 6opi Chand Dewangan, son of Late Awadh Ram Dewangan, aged 46 years, Occupation-Service, presently working as Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C(5), resident of Lqkhe Nagar, Infront of Surjeet Cycle Store, Mahadev 6hat Road, Raipur (C£). 3. RajendraKumar Soni, son of Late Sonal Lal Soni, aged 50 years, Occupation - Service, presently working as Sanitary Inspector, w hi:l ' : 9 Vs RESPONbENTS: Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C6), resident of Qtr. No.625, Pur-ani Basti, Bandhwapara, Raipur (C6). 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through; the Secretary, Urban & Rural Department, Mantralaya, &.K.S. Bhawan, ^Raipur. 2. Municipal Corporation, Raipur through its Commissioner, Malviya Road, Raipur (C6). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2 Z6 O^TH E CONSTITUTION OF IN&IA sn^iw ft-ii* wnsn^rgiiife ^ T -^WM^, 'S\{[w\6, Is(Cfiy^< ,_ lO,?'(&^T~o'S)3/iL/"1 3i^?iTra^C^f3^?) TOiiw^tefsni^i SB : Hon'bie Shri Manjndra Molian Shrivastava. J. 16-06-2011 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava,| i Shri Y.S. Thakur, adva^ice copy. The grievance of the petition is that even though th^ policy dated 5/3/08, for consic|eration one time measure, in compli^nce Court in the case of Secreta!ty_, lcounsel for the petitioners. Depijty Advocate General for the State on p^titioners, as ventiiated through this writ State Government has come out with a of cases for regularisation as a of the directions of the Supreme r, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (31 and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, the cas^of the petitioners eveh are not being considered, on 9/5/97 as Sanitary lnspectoi| Learned counsel for thej the policy of regularisation, the| in service, in view of the decis Uma Devi (Supra). Prima facie, from the ciaiming regularisation on the on temporary basis against a circular dated 5/3/08 of the Government has come out number of cases as per the '*w{<i<(1"i *<w<A" ^ ft'st <R!it(i< ^sifiiiisn^r though the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis. petitioners submitted that according to petitioners are entitled to be regularised on of the Supreme Court in the case of piejadings, it isseen that the petitioners are ^asis that they were appointed on 9/5/97 r^gular and sanctloned vacant post. The State Government shows that the State wfith a policy of regularisation in timited jucjgment of the Supreme Court in the case w«-C\l^Afl l!;"ll<!Wl, <w-ii<i'li<<— FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. n?it-TTTi^'iiri^n-'—],jji,.,^ii,)^ili^j|,gj^gj ^^?. 's^ ^i^i<?)4, 'gi'cftwi^, fsi<ni^y,< iQ.f.&y^s • ^s/^/if %??!'tI^F (l^i^'l'^I a'1^1 w hiifi ^SIT 3ff^T a»*i|c?i TOiRR'Hftd 311^1 -5- .1 Deepti of Uma Devl (Supra). Theref^ deserves consideration. Accfirdingiy, petitionersj' eonsidered by respondent No.^ regularisation dated 5/3/08 ancp thecase ofUma Devi (Supra). It is made ciear that this | the merits or petitioners' ciaim f| With the aforesaid off. obs^vations ^PlferftT *<14<"fl' 4fS^t <Ial«;K ^'siRtqsflI^T ^re, the representation of the petitioners ' claim for regularisation shall be strictly, in accordance with the policy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Court has not expressed any opinion on pr reguiarisation. ,, the petition is finally disposed Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^ii-y^ ^f\ y^"i)<A^, <i^-ii41ii^—FS/i40—2/2011—i,50,ooo.