Rajmal Sona v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 4873 OF 2021 • Rajmal Sona, S/o Balman Sona, aged about 41 years, working as Daily Wage/Contingency Sweeper at P.S. Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3.

Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 4.

Additional Director, General (Administration), Police Head Quarters, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 5.

Superintendent of Police, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Naushina Ali , Advocate.

For Respondents :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [17 /09/2021 ] 1.

Claim of Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seems to be the inaction on the part of Respondents in not regularizing his services. 2.

Petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed a Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.8000/2018 and this Court at the stage of admission itself had disposed of the said Writ Petition on 5.12.2018 by directing the Respondents to consider the claim of Petitioner for regularization in accordance with the policy and circulars of the State Government. 3.

Petitioner has enclosed along with the present Writ Petition certain correspondences inter-se between the Authorities of the Respondent Department which reflect that the Authorities are interested in regularizing the services of Petitioner but for want of proper sanction of a post against which the Petitioner could be regularized. That, correspondences have been made to the higher Authorities in the Department for necessary

sanction to be accorded. These documents suggest that the moment necessary sanction and approval would be received, the claim of Petitioner shall be considered.

4.

Given the set of facts, this Court is of the opinion that there would be no necessity for issuance of a Writ or Mandamus to Respondents at this juncture.

5.

Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of at this juncture expecting that the Respondent Authorities shall consider obtaining of necessary sanction and approval so far as the post against which the Petitioner is seeking regularization and a decision in this regard shall be taken at this earliest.

6.

Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge