Kush Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4152 of 2019

1. Kush Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Darash Ram Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Village Akaltara, Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

2. Mani Shankar Sonwani, S/o Shri Jhadu Ram Sonwani, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Village Akaltara, Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Akaltara, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri S. K. Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Salim Kazi, Deputy A.G.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 27/05/2019 1.

Grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioners are working as daily wager before November, 1997, but the petitioners' case is not being considered for their regularization in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 5-3-2008.

2.

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

3.

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. If the petitioners file fresh representation along with copy of the petition, then the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the petitioners' 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.

4.

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/- (Rajani Dubey) Vacation Judge Nirala