Rajesh Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2152 of 2020

1. Rajesh Pandey Son Of Shri Ramnath Pandey Aged About 40 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Sarkanda, (Bandhwapara) Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

2. Sanjay Dan S/o Shri Mahoba Dan Aged About 45 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Santosh Mishra S/o Late Shravan Mishra Aged About 40 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Shiekh Karim S/o Shri Shiekh Jalil Aged About 32 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

5. Gokul Bhaskar S/o Shri Budhram Bhaskar Aged About 56 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

6. Chatur Singh S/o Shri Batturam Aged About 35 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

7. Narendra Tiwari S/o Shri Durga Prasad Aged About 44 Years Working In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, R.D.A. Bhavan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For petitioners - Shri M. K. Sinha , Advocate. For respondent No.3- Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 15/06/2020 Heard.

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as class-IV employee with respondent No.3, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur for last more than 15 years. It is contended that the petitioners till date they have not been regularized despite the fact that

they have rendered their service for last more than 15 years. He referred to the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Narain Nagar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and latest judgement passed in the case of Rajnish Kumar Mishra & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. decided on 13/12/2019 and would submit that under these circumstances the petitioners are liable to be considered for regularization.

2.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that since there are different petitioners in this case, the petitioners may take liberty to file representation with respondent No.3 which would be decided on the facts of each case individually.

3.

Considering the submission made by the parties, at this stage the petitioners may make representation individually to the respondent No.3, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur seeking their regularization. The petitioners shall also be entitled to attach necessary documents alongwith representation for consideration by the respondent No.3. The petitioners shall be at liberty to make representation within a period of four weeks from today. The representation as and when is received, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur shall decide the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. It is made clear that this court has not made any observation on the merits of the case.

4.

With such observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE gouri