Smt. Munni Bai v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2271 of 2016 • Smt. Munni Bai W/o Shri Harlal Rajkumar, Aged About 41 Years R/o Near Brihaspati Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, ( Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development), Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, ( Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development), District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development) Near Collectorate, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Miri and Basant Kaiwartya, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay,Dy.GA on advance copy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 22/06/2016 Heard.

1.

The grievance ventilated through this present petition is that even as the petitioner is continuing as daily wager employee, however, since 01.03.1997, her case for regularization has not been considered till date in accordance with the circular dated 05.03.2008 though number of daily wagers have been regularized on the post vide order dated 09.09.2008 (Annexure P-5). 2.

Material on record shows that way back in the year 2008, the Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Development) sought instructions from the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Development (Scheduled

Caste & Scheduled Tribe Development), whether the petitioner is eligible for regularization as per terms and conditions of circular dated 05.03.2008. However, nothing has been communicated to the petitioner even for the last 8 years and no order has been passed in respect of the case of the petitioner with regard to her claim for regularization.

3.

The case of the petitioner cannot be kept pending unnecessarily without any decision. Respondent No.2 shall provide necessary guidelines to respondent No.4 in the case of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter within 60 days respondent No.4 shall conclude the proceedings for consideration and necessary order shall be passed. The entire exercise should be completed within three months without failure.

4.

With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra