Sukhram Bhardwaj v. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4171 of 2016 • Sukhram Bhardwaj S/o Salikram Bhardwaj, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village And Post Sakri, P.S. Chakrbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, 22, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. Karmik Manager, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Ms. Pritha Ghoshal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 20/09/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner is continuously working as daily wages employee since 19.04.1993 under the service of respondents, his case for regularization as per Circular dated 05.03.2008 has not been taken into consideration whereas number of similarly situated daily wages employees have already been regularized by the respondent-authority. 2.

It appears that there was some break in service mainly on the ground of illness. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner similar issue of break on the ground of medical illness in respect of same corporation has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Meshram V. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing

Corporation and others passed in WPS No. 4572 of 2014 and direction was issued to examine the claim of regularization. 3.

It appears that the petitioner is claiming parity on the basis of order passed in the case of Arun Meshram (supra) in respect of the same corporation, therefore, the claim of the petitioner may also be considered and if on facts, found to be similarly situated as in case of Arun Mesharam (supra), his case may also be considered in the same manner as has been considered in the case of Arun Meshram (supra).

4.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Chandra