Ankaloo Ram Mahilange v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5378 of 2021 Ankaloo Ram Mahilange S/o Biselal Mahilange Aged About 53 Years R/o Parasbode, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.

The Commissioner Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.

The Collector Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Suyash Dhar, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/10/2021 1.

Present is a second round of litigation. For the same set of facts the petitioner earlier come to this Court vide Annexure P/2 dated 27.08.2008 vide WPS No. 4593/2008.

2.

According to the petitioner, though more than 12 years have since passed, the respondents have till date not taken any decision. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since he did not want to drawn the annoyance of the respondent authorities, he did not prefer a contempt petition at that point of time for compliance of the order and in the process 12 years have lapsed and the petitioner till date is not regularized and still working as a cook.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities in similar cases have already regularized the services of many such employees, but for some reason the petitioner has been left out. 4.

Be that as it may, considering the fact that this Court has already in WPS No. 4593/2008 vide order dated 27.08.2008 have directed the petitioner to prefer a representation for ventilating his grievances and the respondents in turn shall consider the grievance and take a decision at the earliest, this Court at this juncture accepting the contention for not having preferred the contempt petition at that point of time would like to dispose of the present writ petition at this juncture with a direction to the respondents No. 1 & 2 to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner for regularization in service.

5.

In view of the same the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner for regularization within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner meanwhile would be entitled to file a fresh representation if he so wants to the respondents No.1 & 2 in this regard. 6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved