Chhabilal Patel Choudhary v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3148 of 2015 • Chhabilal Patel (Choudhary) S/o Rohit Lal Patel, Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Chowkidar, R/o Village And Post Tundra, Tahsil And Block Kasdole, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri YS Thakur, Dy. AG for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 28/08/2015

1. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is working as daily wager before 31.12.1997, but the petitioner's case is not being considered for 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 petitioner files 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 is disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation individually along with copy of the petition within a period of one month, the competent authority of the respondent authorities are 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 Others1, on its own merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four 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/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Ashu (2006) 4 SCC 1