‘W \M’L/a smgle‘mneh ‘ (1) INTHEHIGH COURT OFCHI-IATTISG ATBILASPUR (C.G)_ w P s No‘)?‘ /20‘1 PETITIONER $noj Kumar Nirmalkér/S/o Latg Vishnu Nirmalkar, aged about. 34 years, ' Village—Lokhandi, Post-Mangla, Distt. _Bilaspur (9G7) VERSUS Statg 9f CG. Through-Secretary Public works Department D K S Bhawan Ralpur (C G ) Chlef Englneer Pubhc works Department Bllaspur (C G) 3 / Executlve Engmeer Pubhc works Department (B & R) Brlaspur D1V1s10n No.1 / Distt. _ Bilaspur (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer Public works Department (B & R) Bilaspur D1V1s10n No 1 Dlstt. Bllaspur (C.G.) WRITsPETITION/UNDER, ARTICLES 2‘26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 4. REPONDENTS 19-11mm 3B: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastalva, J. 24-06—201 1 Shri S. P‘ Kate, ccunse! farthe petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer feHthe State! respondents 'on advance cepy. Heard. This petition has been med by the petitioner aggrieved en account of inaction on the (part of‘the respondents in not considering the petitioner‘s claim for regularization founded on State Government's Policy dated 05—03—2008, issued after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Uma Bevi (3) and Others, (2M6) 4 SOC 1. Learned counsel submite that the petitioner was appointed as dai wage empioyee on the post of Helper in the month of Janu , 1997 and ever since then, the petitioner has been working on th said post. Learned counsel forthe petitioner further submits that num er of iuniors to the present petitioner have been regularized vide order dated 18-U9~2009 and 62-06-2011. Learned counsel also submitted the in view of the policy laid down by the State Government vide circular ated 05-D3-2OQ8tAnnexure P-4), in compliance of the judgment of he Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State ofKamatake an Others (supra), the petitioner is also liable to be considered, because he petitioner has been appointed as daiiy wage employee after 01-01- 989 and before 31—12-1997. As the State Government had issued a ircular for claim of regularization in compliance of the judgment of he Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka an Others (supra), the petitioner is also ta l a entitled to proper consideration of his cl measure Accordmgly;’it is directed that thi .e‘ b ohsidére' strictly in accordance Wl I n the case-bf Secretary, State Kamataka and Others (supra), and c'i'rcUl’a'r dat‘éd'O5-D3-2008 (Annexur P—4) issued by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible. aim for reéuiarization as one time a case of the petitioner shall also th the judgment of the Supreme v‘anindra Mohan Shriva Judge Tumane Sd/— With the aforesaid direction, the p tition is finally disposed off. M s ’