Chowara Chandrakar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6019 of 2017 • Sitaram Sahu S/o Kheduram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village & Post Dashrangpur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Health And Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

4. The District Ayurved Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent And WPS No. 6020 Of 2017 • Chowara Chandrakar S/o S. R. Chandrakar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhansuli, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Vs

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. The Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

4. The District Ayurved Officer, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

---- Respondent And WPS No. 6025 Of 2017 • Namdev Sahu S/o Mahar Das Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Bolapur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Vs

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Health And Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

4. The District Ayurved Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

5. The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

6. The District Ayurved Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioners Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Sameer Behar, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 05/12/2017 I.A. No.1

1. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners on I.A. No.1 for exemption from filing fresh copy of documents. It is considered and allowed.

2. Grievance of the petitioners are that though the petitioners have been working as daily wager prior to 1998, but the petitioners case are not being considered for regularization in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 5-3-2008.

3. In reply to above, learned State counsel submits that if the petitioners files fresh representation along with copy of the petition, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above, the writ petitions stands disposed of. If the petitioners files fresh representation along with copy of the petition, then the competent authority of the respondent authorities is directed to consider and decide the petitioners 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.

5. 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 Akhilesh