Uday Maan Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.3409 of 2015 Uday Maan Ram, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Sampat Ram, Caretaker (Daily Wager), presently working in the Department of Public Works, at Govt. Rest House, Balrampur, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (CG) 2.

Engineer-In-Chief, Department of Public Works, Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3.

Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, Ambikapur, District Surguja.

4.

Superintendent Engineer, Department of Public Works, Ambikapur Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) 5.

Executive Engineer, Department of Public Works, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents : Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 23/11/2015 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Caretaker at Govt. Rest House (as a daily wager) in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, since 1993 against the regular sanctioned vacant post. The Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer have recommended his name for regularization but the same is not being considered by respondent

No.2, and therefore, this petition may be disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the petitioner's case for regularization strictly in terms of Circular dated 05.03.2008, for this, learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, the same shall be considered by the respondent No.2 in accordance with law.

(2) In view of above, this petition is disposed of. However, if the petitioner files a fresh representation along with copy of this order within a period of one month from today, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the representation in the light of Circular dated 05.03.2008 subject to verification of the facts, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation.

(3) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authority may decide the representation on its own merits.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-