isss&'^^lteE IS IHE HISH COURT 0? JUDIGATURE AT BIUSPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIffl'I N0. -182 2. Qg, gggg BETWEEN vldeshi aimar Patel S/o Narayan Lal ^tel,aged aboat 32 years,Resident of village and Bosfe I®nikpur, Baramkela,Ta'nsil Sarangarh oisfertcte Raigarh,presentely working as daily wages employee In P.W.O. Ralgarh (CG). PETITIQIES •^t\ ^•" .8. .••" I • A N D .•:w> ^ 3. The State Mministrative Trlbunal, Bench at Ralpur,through its Regisferar, State Admliri.stratl.ve Tribiaial,Bench Ralpur, Tahsil and Distriet Raipur (CO). fhe Statg of Chhattisgarh, Through tbe Secretary separtment of Riblic llbrks, Mantralay. D.K.S.Billding, Raipur (C8). lihe Bcecutlve Bigineer, Publle Works Beparfement, VincShyae'hal Bhawan, Raigarh, lahsil and District Raigarh (CG). KESPCNBBNTS s,:- WHI'r BETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 GF SHE CffltSTITUTION OF INDIA L. \r XI-HC-22 aiiiw^T •feiwanlSr ^ljt\^ ^I^d II 1 (.!. ~\.^ \' "V;. ~F 'S^ -^l'yid'1), a'al'y'is, (»i<ii'yy WtR'irsht<Kt> .lri:..?^^c]^.Jl'83-'2-l ?-ooi— "'W^ 200 sn^r'B^iraT^ifOT '3.6.2003: 5h ri Rakesh Anthon'st Shri P.S.KoshyeA f4r Heard both the counlse T<)r 1 he petitioner' has 12.4.2002 passed^by respjsndei order dated 31.1.2QOO 2. The petitianer was woi'1 Works Depar'tment. The for the purposeof specifU buildmgs, and after compl^l wags workers including th^ No.3 as per annexure P-2 were appoml^d hfiis bee(|i respondent No.3 (Annexu^e before the STate Admirtistra respondent No.l herein, (^id order vide oinnexure- P-l.l Tribunai has'observed thfc1 emp loyee gnd jn yiew of t(ie State Admmistrative Tribd ctit<t<i<;i4iii *-)Hwf ^ t^et <r^i-^x ^siPgHOT^'g counsel for thepetitioner. respondent NSo.2. (tn i|i this petition chaitenged the orcier doted ijijsndent No.l as per annexure P-1 and the by resppndent No.3 as per annexure P- •|<ing as a Dai ly Wage Worker' in the Pub lic p^titioner ond bl+ier psr-sons were .appoinTed work of construction of roads, bridge and l^tion of that work services of al! the daily petitioner were terminated by respondent the ground thaf the work for which tiiey wmpte-ted. Theso.id order passed bfcg ; P-2)<-wcis challenged by the pe'titipneu" :| rtive Tribunai Bench at Raipur,, the.| 1+ie Tribunal has-passed ^the lmplugrted;| It js seein from anne5gjre -P-i tha1j:BB'Jies| ijit pstitioner was working ns a ddi!y-j4^8^| ::. i^M^l judgment of the biyision Bench <»fi inal, Principa! Bench, in the fflOTter of 'Rs^j| ' ^ft' iss".;st5u:a'-<B'*ais&'';-iSt!sui" XI-HC-22 ^sniy^ii l^'ii+'3ii^?r ^Hic^ ^f^a H> 31a° \^ ^ T '3^ •^l'yw-'l, sfll'y'i®,fadK-iy niwrrsiiKi* :.l?.:ju.l?.:...i^^'2't"!-JSOT— 200 3ii^iwaiw:Hte ••L. Kflmfl! Sen Vs. Stote of 1 Tribunal has no Jurisdicti| petitioner andaccordingly that the pe+itioner is at !i| 'foruni. In view of the admftted and in view of the relied, we are of the opini^n Thus the petition has no dismissed. Accordingly, the ^ Sd/- Chief Justice ()n to dedde *he pstitioh filed by the ^lisposed of the same with an observation qRrat'<yi<4lTf ^mv^^ fs'^i\l^f^i< '^sipOTsn^i l.P. and others. 2001 MPL.SR. 458. the ^erty' to seek remedy before approppiate facts csnd circumstances of the case ^iid judgment on which the Tribungl has tHat it is not a fit case for admission. Isubstance dnd the same is_ liabie to be ketit'on is djsmissed. -^sdT: L.C.BHADOO Judge gjl f^^^i