(SI IN THE HIGH C'OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOM(S) N0.34 ^^ OF 20 I 1 PETITIONEF^: \^-^-, ^0^'r\ ..'•'* »•* Afc§^' ^p' ^•••""" •'D.R. Yadav, A^,cd Ahoiit: 42 Years, S/o- Shri (jhosila Ra m Ya (111 v, Occupation- Workiri}'; <is Waterman, R/o Villagc Kaskela, Distt. Surgujo (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT(S):1: State ofChhallis).?,arli Through SccreUiiy, Department ol l\'eveiui(;, D.K.S. Bhawnn, Raipiir (C.G.) 2. Collector, Koriy.'i, Dislt. Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE; 22(> OF Tl IK CONSTITUTIOM OF INDIA ^-HG—78, WWfT^W^ "3'^T ^TPTI^R, ^"tTt'OT^, fQj<rfl^^< . tA')f(-S;l^O '// ^200 37T^T Tra^r (<icitl<si<^) ^^1 ^T f^'IW 'cf^n 3?TT^T ^^iob 1 U Deepfci ^TcTTW^rft^ ^T^T SBjJ^on'Dle Shri {Vlanindra rvlohan Sihrivastava, J. 30-06-2011 Shri Vinay Pandey, counsei for trj Shri A.V. Shridhar, Panei Lawy| oopy. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner the persons appointed aiong with th( considered for reguiarization under reguiarised in ser\/ice vide order datec( who is simiiarly situated and against satisfactory, has been iiiegaiiy ignored. Learned counsei for the petition| and reguiarization, the petitioner ha^ remained undecided. Consider'ing the submissions and that the person appointed atong w| case of the petitioner is aiso required policy of regularization and strictfy in ad^ the Supreme Court in the case of; Uma Devi f-3s and others f2006) 4 SCC 1, Accordingiy, it is directed that exercise and decide the case ofthe pet|tioner; Vvith the aforesaid observationsj <^i^f<n^l"l 'HFT^f "^* 'f^st Tf^$K ^stRFT^H^T •je petitioner. ^r for the STate/respondents on advance ^s raised in this writ petition is that though petitioner In the year 1991 has been p|3iicy of regularization dated 5/3/08 and: 10/08/09 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner, wjnom, there is no compiaint and service is i^r submits thatdaiming simiiar treatment moved appiicatlon but the same has m^de by iearned counsei for the petitioner |th the petitioner has been reguiarized, the |to be considered, in accordance with the lcordance with the guideiines iaid down by Secrtetarv, Sfate of Karnataka and others v. r^spondent No.2 shaii undertake necessary 3t|tioner, as expeditiousiy as possibte. the petition is finatiy disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^