Durga Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2351 of 2018

1. Durga Yadav S/o Pyare Lal Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 09 Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

2. Ganesh Yadav S/o Panchu Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhsttisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

3. Adip Rajak S/o Panna Lal Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 13 Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary , Urban Administration Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Urban Administration Development Department Raipur Subhash Stadium Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Ms. Smita Jha, counsel for the petitioner/s.

Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate for the State / respondents 1 to 3. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.4. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 16/03/2018 Heard.

1.

The grievance ventilated through this petition is that though the petitioners have been continuing as daily wage employees since 1992, 1989 and 1996 respectively, their claim for regularization has not been considered and no final decision taken. It is submitted that in view of the policy of regularization promulgated by the State Government on 5.3.2008, later on made applicable in the local bodies vide letter dated

3.4.2008 and 1.9.2008, the petitioners' case ought to be considered. 2.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 would be scrutinizing petitioners' claim of regularization in accordance with the applicable policy of regularization and appropriate decision in accordance with law would be taken within a reasonable time.

3.

Having considered the submission and statement so made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, I deem it expedient to dispose off the matter at this stage with a direction to respondent No.4 to examine petitioners' claim for regularization strictly in accordance with law and policy of regularization applicable in the case and take a decision one way or the other within a period of 4 months. 4.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti