Rajeshwar Rao Shinde v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2582 of 2019 Rajeshwar Rao Shinde S/o Late Gulab Rao Sinde Aged About 55 Years R/o Ambedkar Awas Arvind Nagar, Bandhawa, Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, PO And Police Station Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner Land Record, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate For State :

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/04/2019 1.

The default pointed out by the Registry for the moment stands ignored. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard and is being finally disposed off at the motion stage.

2.

The limited grievance, that the petitioner has raised in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner has been working under the respondents for last more than two decades, his services have till date not been considered for regularization.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the circular of the State Government dated 05.03.2008 and the subsequent circulars issued by the State Government, the respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioner also and therefore has prayed for an appropriate direction be given to the respondents.

-24.

Given the limited grievance that the petitioner has, let the petitioner make an appropriate representation to the respondent No.1 in respect of his claim supported with all relevant records and the circulars of the State Government and the respondent No.1 in turn shall consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization taking into consideration the subsequent circulars, which the State Government has passed after the circular dated 05.03.2008, wherein the State Government has diluted the requirement of the initial engagement of a daily wager to prior to 31.12.1997. As per the modified circular, the requirement is only completion of 10 years of service, whereas the petitioner in this case has completed more than two decades of service with the respondents.

5.

On the petitioner's making a fresh representation within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the respondent No.1 in turn shall consider the claim of the petitioner and shall pass an appropriate order within a further period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved