Disposed¶23

Omprakash Banjare v. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jun 2025WPS/3453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 3453 of 2025; Omprakash Banjare v. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation; regularization of long-serving employee (over 10 years); direction to competent authority to decide representation within three months; Jaggo v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 relied upon; no opinion on merits; disposed of, no costs; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.; order dated 11/06/2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition finally disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioner files a representation for regularization, the competent authority decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order of this Court and in the light of Jaggo v. Union of India; no order as to costs. ¶23

Omprakash Banjare Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to have worked with the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation for more than 10 years, is entitled to regularization, and whether he may be permitted to make a representation before the competent authority with a direction that it be decided within a specific time frame.

¶20

Court's answer

If the petitioner files a representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, the authority concerned is expected to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the representation, without being influenced by the earlier order passed by this Court, and in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India and in accordance with law.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case; the concerned authority is at liberty to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S) disposed of by single Judge (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) on 11/06/2025. The petitioner, claiming to have worked with the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation for more than 10 years and seeking regularization, was granted liberty to file a representation before the competent authority; the authority is expected to decide it expeditiously, preferably within three months, in accordance with law, without being influenced by an earlier order of this Court and in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India and others (SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 etc.). No opinion was expressed on the merits; no costs.

2025:CGHC:23170

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3453 of 2025

¶6

1 - Omprakash Banjare S/o Late Shri Mayaram Banjare Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post- Telikot, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Its President, 22 Anand Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, 22 Anand Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondents	:	Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

11/06/2025

¶17

Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.06.11
19:36:00
+0530

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is not being considered by respondent authorities for regularization whereas, he is working with the Corporation for

¶19

¶20

more than 10 years and is entitled for regularization and, therefore, he may be permitted to make representation before the competent authority and the same may be directed to be decided within the specific time frame.

¶21

Be that as it may, if the petitioner files representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, it is expected from the authority concerned to decide the same, without being influenced by the earlier order passed by this Court and also in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Jaggo v. Union of India and others ” passed in SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 etc. and in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.

¶22

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority would be at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶24

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶25

ved

Omprakash Banjare v. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Banjare v. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tikaram Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Madhuri Dixit Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Seema Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vialli Raj Benn Vs Harish Duhan

Smt. Nidhi Sharma Vs Coal India Limited

Rahul Kumar Soni Vs Sunil Sodhi