w <A o •^ <J Kt :< :<1 os •"tr . K^l '<«a ^ M 1'::^ '.:^' <'A .fft^t iSM. »" .,*ilil s? ^: ff m:s: ,1 '.Sr^ •tK ^ ^tut vS ^m ' \ 0\ •.•'ai^" A. ^'f''JR^-- "^.M ys> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5 OF 2011 Petitioner Purnochand Chauhan Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Neelkanth Malvlya, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDERfORAU (Passedon 05th day of January, 2011) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction in this case to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner, as per circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure P-1). ' 2. Before filing this petition, the petitioner has fited earlier a writ petition being W.P.(S)No. 5999/08. This Court after having considered the submissions ofthe learned counse! forthe parties, disposed of the petition on 24.10.2008, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh repr.esentation detailing all the grievances which are raised in the petition before the competent authority, within a period of 4 weeks from the date, and thereafter, it was directed that the competentauthority wouldconsider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt ofthe representation. 3. According to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, the representation was not considered within a prescribed time. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being Contempt Case (Civil) No. 176/09, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner on 25.8.2009 (Annexure P-4). "'^Si^J.-^ Ashok z-\ 4. The petitioner has fited the present petition seeking the same relief, which was sought for in earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5999/08 and thereafter in contempt petition, which wasalso withdrawn. 5. This petition is not maintainable for the same relief, once it has been withdrawn with liberty to file a representation and thereafter, the contempt petitionwas alsowithdrawn. 6. The reliance of the petitioner in State of Kamataka & Others v. M.L. Kessri & Others1 to the effect that if an employee makes an application for regularization, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Secrefa/y, State of Kamataka v. Umadevi(3) & Other^ to undertake exercise of regularizatjon wlthin 6 months of the decision in Umadevl, asone time measure, the petitioner would not be disentitled for consideration of regularization. 7. In thecase on hand.the petitioner has made a representation and since the representationwas not considered, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, which was withdrawn by the petitioner. No further relief can be granted. The decisiQn of the Supreme Court in State of Kamataka v. M.L Keshari and others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. Thus, this petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissedas being not maintainable. 8. In view ofthe above.the writ petition isdismissed. No order asto costs. ; Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^ AIR 2010 SC 2587 2006 4*SCC 1