High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/715/2017disposed off

Panchram Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-02-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.715 of 2017 Panchram Rathore S/o Shri Jhabbu Rathore, Aged About 46 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Peon, In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division Marwahi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary : Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Bilaspur Circle Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services Division Marwahi, Head Quarter Pendra, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Indrasen Sahu, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/02/2017 (1) Heard.

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents No.4 & 5 have recommended the case of the petitioner before the higher authorities of the department for

regularization his service in accordance with circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by State Government and he has also made representation before respondent No.1 to consider his case but till now, no decision has been taken by the respondent No.1 and therefore, direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to decide the same expeditiously.

(3) Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

(4) In view of above, respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to consider and take a decision on the case of the petitioner for regularization his service in accordance with circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by State Government preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(5) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and respondent authorities would be at liberty to decide the case of the petitioner as per rule. (6) With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-