PETITIONER Rishi Ra. abeut 43 Malig A‘ Km‘ba{C( Versus Chhattisg through Central B Chajnnai, ’ Conserva Chief E’ Coiigava Ragional Enviroml MQ’iaranv o (CG) Secretary Govemm Raipur (( The C011 x Smgh, S/o late Mm‘ii Shigh, aged years, Rh) Flat No.6; Cit) ShyamEal ivoca‘xa, RaviShallkar Shukla Nagar, ‘ I} al‘h Environment Conssrvatioxn Board, Lts Secmtaxy, Nanak Bhawaix, Near ank Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh ion Board, Raigmr (CG) 1gineer, C'hhattisgarh ticm Board, Raipur {CG} Ofs‘icer, Regional Oi§ice Chhattisgarh xent Couservafion Boarél, HIG-Qi, 22, a Pratap Nagar, ’{Extension), Korba , Department of Environment, eat of Chhattisgarh, DKS Bhavan, 1G) ‘ctor, Distt. Korba (CG) its MP. E’ llution Control Board, through Member Secretaiy, E—5, Paryavaran Palisar, Arera Co ony, Bhopal (MP) {WRIT PETI’I‘ION UNDER ARTIC E 226 OF THE CONSTKTUTION OF 1NDIA} B: HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA L__.__.._._—- 06.12.200S:- RRS’PeNDENTS 1. Environment Environmem 9\ 1$ ISHRA, J Shri Utkarsh Verma; cou nsel for me petitioner WWW WW $Wanéa The petitioner by the insraj Idiefs: — ii) To direct the respom ; petitioner undcr the so] framed by them and Miss Sunita Jain, Panel La Nyer for the respondents No. 1 to 6. 1t petition has prayed for the following stipulaied time. To diract confermi of a consequential beneflts. of tho lents to consider the case leme of regularization Wet 7-7—1994 pass appropriate orders Within a The. gxievance of tho peti ‘oncr is that he is working as daily wager since 1992. Madhya Pra .vesh Poliution Contm} Boarti (for ehort ‘ihe Boaz‘ii’} has framed Scheme of Annexure-P/5 for regularization of viai'iy Wage employees ami servic s of 17 deu’ly wagers were regularized vide order dated e 10-9- 1996. petitioner earlier was dismiss August 2006. (Annexure—P/ 2) the yetitioner oh daily wages firs and thereafter on contract basis is in violation of the constitutional s .heme enshrined urider Articles 14 8r, 16 of the Constitution of India. rit Appeal No.25 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner was also dismiss .d by this Court Vide order dated 6th February, 2008 (Annexure—P] 3 and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1 1374/ 2008 was also dismis ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Vide order dated 12-5-2008 (Annex + on is hear g; filed on the ground that the riseoedeot Board bad already iloated it Petition No.2003!03 filed by the by this Court Vide order dated 2nd h a finding that the appointment of P/4). However, this petiti W u t r - mmmam WW WW *Wm scheme for rcgularization of the daily wager and serviws of 17 daily wagers ware rcgularized, however, the cass of the petitionei" was not considered. Relying upon the judgment in the matter of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey & others passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in kppeal (civil) No.3765 of 200 1, it was argued that Uma Devi’s case cannot be applied mechanicaHy without seeing the facts of a paxticular case, as a little diiference in facts can make Uma Devi’s case illapplicahle to the facts of that case. .lt was further argued that in the earlier round of litigation) the policy decision of the Boani 'aken on 30m August, 1996 and in implementation thereof 17 sinjlarly situated daily wagers’ services were regularized vide order dated 10-9-1996 and, therefore, the petitioner is aiso entitled for the relief of regularization. Heard. The petitioner’s petition was dismissed by this Court placing reliance in the judgment of Uma Devi’s case. Writ Appeal and subsequent Special Leave Petiti 3n also stand dismissed by this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court re ctively, vide Annexures—P/S and P/4. So far as submission of l arned counsel for the petitioner based on Pooran Chandra Pandey case (Supra) that Uma Devi’s case cannot be applied mechani without considering the facts of a particular case is concerned, since finding of this Court in WP. No.2063i03 has already been ‘Tiirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court u s e ’ c ’ Va order of Annexurc-P/ 4, the eparate writ pau'tion. So far as argumsnt that M .P. Pollution Control Board has taken a cision in the year 1996 to neguiarize the services of daily wagers ice and in pursuance thereof, services n' daily wages were regularized as concerned, the decision of the Board ar 1996 and, therefore, the petitioner ‘rity after 12 years of the above poiicy .t petition filed by the petitioner for dismissed by this Court and the same Supreme Court. is, the writ petition is devoid of to be dismissed and is accorxiingly itself. de h have complemd 2 yeaxs sen f 7 Junior Lab Assistant c Laboratory Assistant Grado—II is n is regard pertains to the ye cannot be permitted to Claim pa cision, particularly, when wr intical reliefs has already been h been affirmed by the Hon’ble For the aforesaid reaso substance, the same deserves dismissed at the admission stage Bve gxr same cannot be rte—agitated again by a Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge c w id s wo o 1 i th de de as