High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2851/2019disposed off

Babu Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-04-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2851 of 2019 Babu Lal S/o Shri Chherku Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Borid, Post And Thana Fingeswar, Tahsil Rajim District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest Head Quarter Jail Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Divisional Forest Officer Gariyaband District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15/04/2019 1.

The prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. 2.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wage employee in the year 1995. He continued to serve the Department till 2000 when his services were discontinued. The discontinuance was immediately challenged by way of Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was referred to the Labour Court in the year 2000 itself. The Labour Court initially rejected claim of the petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2013. The said order was subjected to challenge before the High Court in WP No.

-2484 of 2004. The High Court vide order dated 31.10.2013 set aside the order of the Labour Court and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for considering the same afresh. During the course of hearing before the Labour Court, the worker entered appearance before the Labour Court and stated that he has again been engaged by the department in the year 2014 and since then he has been working with the Department therefore, he does not intend to further pursue with the reference case and accordingly the reference case was closed.

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the services rendered by the petitioner would would reveal that the petitioner had served more than 10 years and therefore his case may be considered by the Department for regularization as per the circular dated 05.03.2008. 4.

State counsel submits that let the matter be scrutinized by the Authorities in the Department in accordance with the circulars applicable regarding regularization and an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with the rules.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner prior to his discontinuance in December, 2000 had put in about 5 years of service and now subsequent to 2014 he has put in again more than 6 years of service that means he has put in more than 10 years of sercvices. let the authorities in the Department consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization and decide the same in accordance with the circular dated 05.03.2008 and all subsequent circulars in this regard and an appropriate order be passed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6.

With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit