Ashok Kumar Tondekar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3402 of 2021 Ashok Kumar Tondekar S/o Bhagwani Tondekar Aged About 45 Years Working As Employment Assistant, Under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee, Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Collector District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, District Mahasamud Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Mahasamund District Mahasamud Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. K. P. Sahu, Advocate For State :

Mr. Suyash Dhar, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/07/2021

1. The limited relief that Petitioners have sought for, is for an appropriate direction to Respondents to consider the case of Petitioners for being regularized in service.

2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner has been working with the Respondents as Rojgar Sahayak uninterruptedly for the last 13 years and that the nature of work discharged by him was regular in nature, therefore, the Respondents should consider regularizing the services of

-2Petitioner against the post that he is discharging. He further submits that the Respondents have already constituted a Committee to scrutinize the claim of Petitioner seeking regularization and that the Committee also is said to have recommended the case of the Petitioner for regularization. However, there is no further development in his case for regularization.

3. The limited prayer sought for by Petitioner is not opposed by learned State Counsel.

4. Given the said facts, the present writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the grievance of Petitioner and pass an appropriate order in respect of the claim of Petitioner for being regularized in service, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. Petitioner is at liberty to file a detailed representation, if he so wants, in addition to any representation that he has already made and the Respondents are directed to decide the same within the same period of 90 days.

6. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit