a^-\^_^ IN THE HIGH GOURT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W. P. ('S)No.^CT&> /2011 PETITIONER ••e <^LSf.!^.- (>»-N*-"~"^^fcl^;-yiT:" 'p^iww*^swit'^CT^.i2..... dgttfd.....——-" REPONDENTS Harinarayan Tamboli S/o Beniprasad Tamboli, aged about 41 years, R/o Karaiyapara, Post-Ratanpur, Teh. & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G. VERSUS 1. ^StateofC.G. Through-Secretaiy RularAdministration & Developmenf Dept. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ Joint Director RularAdministration &DevelopmentDept. Bilaspur(C.G.) 3. ^ Chief Munieipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRTTPETmONtJNDERARTICLES2260FTHECONSTFTUTIQN OFINDIA 'S^ rilWW<1, ^Srt\WW, [^fiWy . ^^.Cs)t^.W3j?^\ 3T^?F'(ra^ ('a?f3^ET) 31I^?I W ft-fl* ^TT STT^T s^iitiSR ^iiW^tteT ati^ff SB: Hon'bleSbri Manlndra Mohan Slinyastava, J 1S.08-2011 Shri S. P. Kale, counsel for the FJetitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Governjnent Advocate for the State/ respondents No. 1 & 2 on advance copsf. Heard. Kamatsffa approactjed This petition has been filed by of inaction on the part of the petitioner's olaim for regularization dated 05-03-2008, issued after the judfe oase of Secretery, State of and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learnefl that earlier the petitioner had (S) No.5312.af 2010, in whtoh, vide allowed the petitioner to withdraw thej that representation of the petitioner possible, but the respondents have petitioner for regularization, whereas 03-2008 has been implemented. He al^ (Cj No. 150 of 2011 was also filed b\| disposed off obsen/ing that there is representation nor any time limit has the The petitioner has plaoed on| promulgated by the State Goverr<ment regularization as one time measure in ^l'qfeT^ ''TTH^ff "^f fS^ tf^l-f-^R ^'atRms'^r petitioner aggrieved on account resjsondents in not considering the foui|)ded on State Government's Policy judbment of the Supreme Court in the ancl Others vs. ilma Dew (3) counsel for the petitioner submits this Court by filing Writ Petitjon 4rder dated 17-09-2010, this Court petition with the liberty, expecting w+ild be decided as expeditiously as Inot considered the claim of the policy of regularization dated 05- |o submits that a Contempt Petition the petitbner, but the same was ho definite direction to decide the fixed. trte Wen record policy dated 05-03-2008 for considering cases of ompliance of order passed by the 'yST •<fl'i<IM^, »-a1<H<l<c, PlOI'Hy —-.\^...?.:(f)..'n.;3(r83i.^..V. «11«f<'ll(»*11<!(»-"•"•---•••--•"-y" 311^1 'f^! (ijql^«)1^4) 311^1 ^ilft-fi'* 'tWT •sn^r si»*ii<:?* Tumane TOiitfre ^ite(aii^t —2-. Supreme Court in the case of Secretafy, vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (200S) having made representation, the consider the representation in the iyh1 lidht apFjropriate S^cretary, Offlers, Therefore, it would be interest of justice to direct respondejit petitioner also inthe light ofciroutardal the Supreme Court in the case of Others vs. Uma Devi (3) and appropriate decision on petitioner's r^f period not exceeding four months from) the order. It is made clear that this Courtl the merits ofthe case. The respondent| decision in accordance with law and Supreme Court in the case of Secreta^. vs. Uma Dew (S) and Others, (2006)t verifteation and scrutiny of his service r^c With the aforesaid direotion, the ^^rfcpf^T TFTO^ff ^f 'fe^ <Rn^i< i? aiRm sii^r y, State ofKamataka and Others ; SCC 1. Therefore, the petitioner espondent No.3 is required to of the government policy. and expedient in the No.3 to consider the case ofthe |ed 05-03-2008 and the judgment of ^cretary, State of Karnatalfa and )ers. P006) 4 SCC t, and take ipresentation within a. reasonable date of receipt of a copy ofthe has not expressed any opinion on authority would be at lifaertyto take In the light of the judgment of the y, State ofKamataka andOthers 4 SCC 1, after making necessary scords. petition is finally disposed off. Sd-/ .„,.__ ^anindraMohauShrivartaya ^lifl^W ^^1<1 ^SnNCXI, -FS/140—2/2011—1 ,50,000. + y <i