Disposed

Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Aug 2018WPS/5459/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding regularization as a daily wager employee, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the petitioner's claim requires scrutiny under the relevant State Government circular and Supreme Court judgment and directed the respondents to consider it within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization in light of the State Government circular and Supreme Court judgment within four months.

Radheshyam Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 5459 of 2018

¶5

Radheshyam Yadav S/o Shri Daduram Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, C/o Sacchanand Basantram Kirana Stores, Near Old Bus Stand, Takhatpur, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Chief Engineer Minimata ( Hasdeo ) Bango Project, Department Of Water Resources, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Nahar Jal Prabandh Sambhag, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate For State : Ms. Astha Shukla, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

23.08.2018

Heard.

Grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization under the policy of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 promulgated in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the case of the petitioner has not been considered till date.

¶18

In the present writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as daily wager on 01.04.1991 and thereafter on 31.03.1996 he was discontinued from engagement, which was successfully challenged

¶19

¶20

by the petitioner by filing the claim before the Labour Court. The petitioner was reinstated. The order of reinstatement was challenged by the respondents by filing the writ petition being WPL No. 2835 of 2011 before this Court, but the writ petition was also dismissed. In these circumstances, the petitioner is required to be treated as daily wager employee from his first date of appointment w.e.f. 06.12.1993.

¶21

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State submits that only those persons are entitled to be regularized who fulfilled the requirement of condition mentioned in the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008.

¶22

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager on 01.04.1991, his services were discontinued from 31.03.1996 and thereafter he was reinstated under the judicial order, in these circumstances, claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be frivolous and requires scrutiny in the light of the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008.

¶23

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008 and judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (supra) and take a decision on the claim of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).

¶24

Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge

¶25

Bhola

Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Roshni Pandey Earlier Roshni Dubey, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyammurat Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G.P. Purena Vs Pt.Ravishankar Shukla UNI.RAIPURand1ORS.

Naved Siddiqui Vs State Of Chhattisgarh