Dismissed

Chinta Ram Lahare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2012WPS/12/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a writ petition under Article 226 regarding regularization of employment. The Court refrained from adjudicating merits, instead directing the petitioner to make a representation for consideration in accordance with the Uma Devi judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed liberty to make representation on the claim for regularization for consideration by the respondents in accordance with law.

Chinta Ram Lahare Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR 'ZOI"; Z.2WHW.P.(S.) N0. (2-

¶2

PETITIONER:
.^•1
9is^ 1-1
Qa"i ^i^
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
' " (^
2.
3.

¶3

Chinta Ram Lahare S/o Shri Mahesh Ram Lahare, aged about 134 years, Posted as Watchman, at Governinent Industrial Training Institute, Paththalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶4

State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary Technical Education Janshakti Niyojan Vigyan Bhawan, Prodogki Vibhag M.antralayai D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipiur (0>G.)

¶5

The Joint Director Industrial Training Institute, Raipur (C.G.) The Principle Government Industrial Training Institute, Pathfhalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶6

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶7

The petitioner most humbly and respectfully begs

¶8

to submit as under :

¶9

'72.

¶10

HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SJi: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishta. J.

¶11

Writ Petition (Sl No. 12/2012

¶12

PETITIONER : Chinta Ram Lahare

¶13

Veraus

¶14

RESPONDENTS State of ChhatUsgarh and others

¶15

Appearance:

¶16

Shri U.R. Koshlay, counsel for the petitioner. Shri ^ay Dwivedi, t3y.GA. for the State.

¶17

WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CCTISTITUTION OF INDIA

¶18

ORALORDER (5.01.2012)

¶19

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of direction for consideration of his representation in the matter of claim for regularization.

¶20

(2) It is submitted that the petitioner has been continuing as daily wage employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submite that the State Government has issued a policy dated 5/03/2008 (Annexure P-4) to regularize irregular appointmente, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others y. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006)4 SCC 1.

¶21

(3) In view of the aforesaid submission, without commenting upon the merits of the case or entiUement of the petitioner, this petition is finally disposed off with Ifberty to the petitioner to make representation in respect of his ctaim. On such representation made, it would be open for the respondents to consider and take decision on such representation strictly in accordance with law, iaid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

¶22

(4) With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off.

¶23

Sd//-

¶24

prashant Kumar Mishra

¶25

¶26

liilll.s :. i

Chinta Ram Lahare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinta Ram Lahare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Vibha Sahay Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

S.K.Mahale Vs Union of India and Ors.

C.G. Rajya Karamchari Sangh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Steel Authority of India Vs Lekhram and Ors.

Rp.Singh Vs P.C.I. New Delhi and Ors.

Raghuvar Prasad Choudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.