Jitendra Singh v. Board Of Director

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2361 of 2017 • Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Mehtab Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Jaitgiri, Police Station & Tahsil Bakawand, Civil & Revenue District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Board Of Director C. G. Rajya Krishi Vipdan Board, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Managing Director, C. G. Rajya Krishi Vipdan Board, Telibandha, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Deputy Director, C. G. Rajya Krishi Vipdan Board, Jagdalpur, Civil and Revenue Distt. Baster, Chhattisgarh.

4. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jagdalpur, Through Its Secretary/President, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jagdalpur, Civil & Revenue District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri P. M. Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Ashutosh Pandey, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 07/11/2017 1.

Grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been working as daily wager since 1988, but the petitioner's case is not being considered for regularization in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 5-3-2008. 2.

In reply to above, learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner files fresh representation along with copy of the

petition, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 3.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation along with copy of the petition, then the competent authority of the respondent authorities is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case for regularization strictly in accordance with State Government's circular dated 5-3-2008 issued in compliance of the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, on its own merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation.

4.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala