Shivshankar Vishvakarma And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3142 OF 2014 1.

Shivshankar Vishvakarma, S/o Shri Budhawa Ram, aged about 42 years, R/o Village & Post - Karadari (Tigra), Thana & Tahsil - Manora, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2.

Bifaiya Ram, S/o Shri Ghuran Ram, aged about 43 years, R/o Village - Goriyatoli, Post & Tahsil & Thana - Manora, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Family and Health Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Director, Directorate Health Services, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Deputy Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 30/10/2015 1.

Relief sought for by the Petitioners is for a direction to the Respondents to consider their case of regularization in accordance with the rules applicable.

2.

Counsel for the Petitioners submits that vide Annexure P-1, dated 4.12.2010, Respondent No.2 had issued specific instructions to all the Chief Medical and Health Officers of the District in the State of Chhattisgarh seeking for details of the Malaria Field Workers working in the respective Districts so that their case can be considered for regularization. According to the Petitioners, the document shows that the Petitioners have been working with the Respondents for more than

-215-20 years and yet their case has not been considered by Respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that some other similarly placed persons of the same District had also approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (S) No. 2435 of 2014 which was disposed of on 15.5.2014 directing the Petitioners therein to approach the authorities by filing detailed representation which in turn would be considered by the State Government objectively preferably within a period of 6 months. Counsel for the Petitioners prays for the similar relief.

3.

Counsel for the State does not have any objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court on 15.5.2014 in Writ Petition (S) No. 2435 of 2014. 4.

In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon in the instant writ petition.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order dated 15.5.2014 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2435 of 2014. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/