>i^?^>.i¥.tl!«!»*!•**fft'*< ... ..^' ^^Hi.%zsfc6iiaj>$»%Ajffsi*s8Ssaail'y '^^^^WSS^sy.^.,- ;^;S:'';'^';"??"?L?£=ff:^^'- 3. Imy't^.. L 'nt^" IN THS HIGH CDtRTOF JUDTCATWE AT.aBALPOR M.P._ F. P. NO . -33_'11_/_1 9Q9 RetitlAner Bharat Sbal, aged 29 years, son bf Myc-iidhar Scml, ?leld Asstt. (Daily Wages) Sub Dlvlslon shlvajee tfagar (^st) Kunlcipal corporatipB, BhUai, Tab. and Dlstt. Di^g. VERSOS. ' Respondentss- 1. Munlclpal Corporation, Bbllai throiagh the Cotatnissioner e 2. Bamjl Slri^i, Tj.me Keeper (SanayFal ) Munleipal Cbrporfction, Bhllai. ^. 3. Ram Qravesh, Tine Keeper (Samaypal) Municipal Corporatlon, Bhilai. C. 4. RiartRendra, Tlne •Keeper (SaiBaypal) Munielial Corperation,Sbilai. Betitlon under artiele 226/227 of the Gonstitutios of Indla. ..»tf»-'-••'?•••' ^ ""9'"»; ;^* ^3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . Writ Petition No. 3379 of 1999 Petitioner Bhaiat Soni Versus Respondeuts Municipal Corpoiation, Bhflai & otliei-s 6B!811»SI!a.' BSB'Sa ''•^j-13^^ yngle Bench : HonTile Mr. Justice Sattsh K. A^iihotri, Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for ftie petitioner. Shri H, B. Aganval, Senior Advocate with Miss Shipra Biswas, Ad.voca.tc for the i^spondent No, 1. ORAL_ORDER ( 16fh Febmaiy, 2006) The foUo^viag order of £heCourt was passed by Satish K. Agaihotri, J. The petitioner, who was appoiated on the post of Time Keeper on 26.6.1990 in fhe Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, has filed fhis petition seeking a direction agaiast the Respondent No. 1 to regularize the services of fhe petitioner froni fhe date on which, his juniors have been regularized. -* Leamed coiuisel for the petitioner subinits that fhe Respondent No.2 (Shri Rajnji Siagh) was appointed on 26.8.1993 aad was regularizcd on 8.3.1994, whereas fhe Respotodent No.3 (Shri Rata Pi^ivesh) was appointed on 24.12.1990 and Respondent No.4 (Shri Dharmendra) was appoiated on 26.12.1990, aad bofh of fhem werc regularized on 20.1.1997, ^aoriag fhe claim of the petitioner, when he was senior aad was appointed on earUer point of tune. Leamed couasel for tlie petitioner, veheinenfly aj-gucd fhat fhe Respondent No. 1 had not foUowed the principles ofseniority in case of regularization. ^t ^- \.^- IBI 1811 III) illrhafa 4. Shri H. B. Agai-wal, leamed Senior counsel assisted by Miss Shipra Biswas, teamed counsel for fhe Respondent No, 1, fau-ly subiaits that fhe last person i.e. the Respondent No.4 was given regiilarization and the claim- of fhe petitioner was igaored. In viexv of fhe above stated facts fhe Respondent No.l is duected to regularize fhe petitioner on work charged establisl-unent w.e.f. the date when his juniors were regularized on work chai^ed establishinent Accordingly, the petition is aJlowed. No order as to costs. The petitioner wozild be at liberty to inake a representation for payinent of difference of wages froin the date of his regularization, if so advised. Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ir ..•;)-