Khemram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6463 of 2017 1.

Khemram Sahu S/o Bhanuram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Laxmanpur, Tahsil Palari, District BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2.

Suresh Yadav, S/o Brijlal Yadav, Aged About 45 Years R/ Village And Post Tila, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3.

Sonchand Sahu, Santosh Sahu, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Chandkhuri, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4.

Dashrath Sahu, S/o Bahuran Sahu, Aged About 60 Years R/o Tekari Kunda, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Health And Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The District Ayurved Officer, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. The District Ayurved Officer, District BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

6. The Collector, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioners Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Sameer Behar, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/11/2017 I.A. No.1

1. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners on I.A. No.1 for exemption from filing fresh copy of documents. It is considered and allowed.

2. Grievance of the petitioners are that though the petitioners have been working as daily wager prior to 1998, but the petitioner's case is not being considered for regularization in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 5-3-2008.

3. In reply to above, learned State counsel submits that if the petitioner files fresh representation along with copy of the petition, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation along with copy of the petition, then the competent authority of the respondent authorities is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case for regularization strictly in accordance with State Government's circular dated 5-3-2008 issued in compliance of the decision of the Supreme Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi

(3) and Others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, on its own merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of representation.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Akhilesh