Harileya Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.4167 of 2017 • Harileya Bai W/o Narsingh Yadav, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhulatola, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, At Present Posted At Kastagar-Balod, Forest Range Office Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Conservator Of Forest, Durg Circle, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

5. The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range Balod, Forest Division Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri D. R. Minz, Dy.GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 30/08/2017 Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated through this petition is that even though the petitioner is continuing as daily wage employee since long, his claim for regularization has not been decided till date. It is submitted that though the petitioner was terminated in the year 1989, award of reinstatement was passed in his favour by the Labour Court in the year 1998 with the legal consequence that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the initial date of appointment in the year 1984.

2.

If the case of the petitioner is considered treating her initial date of appointment as in the year 1984, she would be entitled to be considered for regularization under circular dated 05/03/2008 issued for consideration of cases of regularisation pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006

(4) SCC 1 for consideration of cases of those, who have completed 20 years of service.

3.

After going through the records and orders passed by the Labour Court, it is quite clear that the effect of the order would be that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service without any break. This would entitle the petitioner for due consideration for regularization under circular dated 05/03/2008. This shall be done now.

4.

Let the case of the petitioner shall be considered by a duly constituted committee as per policy dated 05/03/2008 and decision be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane