v x ]C X WQEEE 3mm (1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.N0. \Z’l’z 12005 Petitiorwrs / 1. Jaggan Nath S/o Puru Kanwar, Aged about 45 . years, R/o ViHaga M6dh, P.O Raseda, Tehsil — BeJcda Bazar, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.) / 2. Mahetar S/o Ram Kisun Dhru, Aged about 45 years, R/0 Village Medh, Post : - Ras€da, Tshsil : Balcda Bazar, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.) Shatruganlal Gada S/o Atma Ram Gada, Agsd above 4§ years, R/o ViHage 8;; Pest : Damm, Tahsil — Baloda Bazar, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.) Taras Ram Kawar S/o Hisu Ram Kawar Aged abe t 49 years R/o Village & Post Damru Tahsll Baioda Bazar, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.} . Baran S/o Fagu Ram Kawar, Aged abaut 49 years, R/o Village Damru, Post — Damru, Tahsil :— Baloda Bazar, Dist : Raipur—(C.G.) Thakur Ram S/o Sukhi Ram Gond ‘Aged about 50 year/ R/o Vi‘lage Beirdih Post — Jara Tahs'il — Baloda - Bazar, Dist : Raipur~(C.G.) Versus Resgondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretay Department of Irrigation, D.K.S‘ Bhawan, Raipur (co). 2. Sub Divisional Officer ‘ Irrigation Suo DwiSion No 7 Baloda Bazar Dist Raipur {C.G.) The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Baloda Bazar, Dist : Raipur (C.G.). The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Raipur (C G ) .O Maw m (2) WRIT U 'A 226 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF ENDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS PROHIBITION, CERTERIORAI ETC OR ANY OTHER DIRECTIONS ‘ OR ORDER «3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH 2 BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1272 OF 2005 f (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Ashok Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER IORAL) (Passed on this 21$ day of Aprn, 2010) Grievance of the petitioners is that they are permanent Gangman and working in the Public Works Department for the Iast 25 years, even then they are not being regularized and the salary on the ground of equal work and equal pay is not being provided to them. The petitioner’s case is that the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh framed service Rules for the Gangman as Madhya Pradesh Gangman Service Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules, 1996”) and these rules came into force w.e.f. 1,1.96. As per these rules the Gangmen who have worked for about 25 years shall be regularized and salary will also be paid to them. The petitioners have requisite qualifications for regularization. Therefore, it has been prayed that respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working for the last 25 years i.e. before 315‘ December 1998 and they are permanent Gangman, therefore, they are‘ entitled for regularization as per the Rules,‘1996 but their case is not being considered by the authorities. Learned counsel. for the petitioners 14x , PFTITIONERS Jaggan Nath Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others \t ‘ further submits that the respondents authorities be directed to ensure ihat the cases of the petitioners are considered in accordance with Rules 5 and 7 of Rules, 1996 for their regularization, to which learned counsel for State has no objection. Having heard learned counsel for the patties, having perused the record and the Rules, 1996, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case of each of the petitioners‘ respondent authorities are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners and to examine and scrutinize the case of eac’h of the petitioners for their regularization in accordance with’Rules, 1996, particularly, Rules 5 and 7 of the Rules, 1996 and in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Govind & Others v. State of C.G. & Others‘, subject to verification of facts, This exercise should be completed within a period of 3 months from today. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of, l sci/- l Satish K. Agnihotri Judge /———— 1 2007 (2) CGLJ 29