Ramlakhan Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3864 of 2017

1. Ramlakhan Patel S/o Milau Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village-Mongra, Ward No. 10, Thana Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

2. Rajendra Yadu S/o Kartik Yadu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kohkabod, Thana Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Development Department, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Joint Director, Urban Administration Development Department Raipur- Division, Subhash Stadium- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioners Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 30/10/2017 Heard.

1. The grievance ventilated through this petition is that though the petitioners have been continuing as daily wage employee since 1996-97, their claim for regularization has not been considered and no final decision taken. It is submitted that in view of the policy of regularization promulgated by the State Govt. on 5.3.2008, later on made applicable in the local bodies vide letter dated 3.4.2008 and 1.9.2008, the petitioners' case ought to be considered.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 would be scrutinizing the petitioners' claim of regularization in accordance with the applicable policy of regularization and appropriate decision in accordance with law would be taken within a reasonable time.

3. Having considered the submission and statement so made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, I deem it expedient to dispose of the matter at this stage with a direction to respondent No.4 to examine petitioners' claim for regularization strictly in accordance with law and policy of regularization applicable in the case and take a decision one way or the other within a period of 4 months.

4. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri