Petitioners challenged lack of regularization in daily wager appointments. Court directed respondent to dispose of representation considering merits, distinguishing case specifics.
Petition permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file representation; respondent directed to decide expeditiously after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(T
,-^
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
AT BILASPUR W.P. fSI No. ^^ /2014
PETITIONERS
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
Forest,New Mantralaya,Mahandi Bhavan Naya Raipur, Distt.
y Raipur (C.G.)
y 2.
4./
<<.
WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
•••«.
<k
.I/'
XI-HC—78
'TSST ^Wvl^, ®Tftwi?,'fapTRfg?
TTTO^fT 3WTO..^.f...^.i..Ofc;..G1.'s^ 201
| Sf^Sq5Ri ( 1^0^61((?) | ||
|---|---|---|
| sn^^iiR-fi* rWT^I^sh*1 |
??aiW?i^a3ii^!!( | ^>l<<fd«l-lMlWrtTOl^i^ <Rl<«ii< ^siRmgii^i |
| S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRIT 05.01.2015 ShriAjit Singh, counsel forthe ShriA.V.Shridhar, P.L. for the S |
The petitioners who are workit] year 1990-91 have approached this C petftioners have not beeh decided anq petition would be served if they ai Counselforthe petitioners subi petition with liberty to file representati |
^
''•>. ^ y^."' .... y A".:"^ XI-HC—78 '-»-:i...
^EET '<4i<4i<i<<, yTflwis, Rirti'yy
^Wv{\ sh^i+...>A?.^.f:s2 .&^.?.Uj..ta^20l
| an^iv^v{ictIyi<iEf) | |
|---|---|
| sii^i^iiR-ii'ti ^nW^T^ITR) |
?SiI<SR^lfttI3II^I i1t<Trt-4i<l KI+IPU^f-g^^WK ^isiRmsn^i |
| possible. : It is made clearthat this Cour1 merits ofthe case and the authority i decide thesame in accordance with 1 has not expressed anything on ancerned would be at liberty to IW. |
|
| Sd/7- PritinkerDiwaker Judge |
|
| ^ . ' . . •• . |
°'.
^
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners have a right to claim regularization of their appointment as daily wagers.
Whether the appointment was made following due procedure of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma DeviRelied on¶24
(2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karan Sahu
R.amji Dahire
State of Chhattisgarh
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
Conservator of Forest at Durg
Divisional Forest Officer, Kawardha
Pritinker Diwaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
