Disposed¶22

P Ananda Rao v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2025WPS/7138/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regularization; daily wager; contract employees; NIT Raipur; National Institute of Technology Raipur; pending representation; direction to decide representation; four weeks; service record verification; WPS No. 7138 of 2025; Writ Appeal No.397 of 2025; Writ Appeal No.415 of 2025; Union of India; Ministry of Human Resource Development; Chhattisgarh High Court; disposed

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.2&3 to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation in accordance with law, on its own merits and objectively, within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶22

P Ananda Rao Vs Union of India — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (regarding regularization) within a stipulated time period.

¶17

Court's answer

The case of the petitioner for regularization in service requires verification of documents, and the authority concerned will take a decision on the representation within a stipulated time frame in accordance with law, keeping in view the Division Bench orders in WA Nos.397 of 2025 and 415 of 2025.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Respondents No.2&3 are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, on its own merits, objectively, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPS No. 7138 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 16.07.2025, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J): The petitioner, a servant/hostel employee of NIT Raipur seeking regularization, confined his prayer at the outset to a direction that his pending representation be considered within a stipulated time. Respondents submitted that the issue of regularization of daily wager/contract employees stood decided by Division Bench orders dated 25.06.2025 in WA No.397 of 2025 and 30.06.2025 in WA No.415 of 2025, but offered to verify service records and pass appropriate orders on the representation in the light of those orders. Held: the claim to regularization requires verification of documents and the authority shall decide the representation within a stipulated time frame in accordance with law, keeping in view the two Division Bench orders; respondents No.2&3 directed to consider and decide the pending representation on its own merits, objectively, within four weeks of receipt of the order. Petition disposed of.

2025:CGHC:33277

NAFR

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.16 15:26:18 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 7138 of 2025

¶7

1 - P Ananda Rao S/o Shri P Trinath Rao Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Servant, Hostel - Sirpur, Nit, Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director National Institute Of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Registrar National Institute Of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner (s)	:	Shri Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	:	Shri Sharad Mishra, on behalf of Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General.
For Respondents No.2&3	:	Shri Prashant Singh on behalf of Shri
		Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

16.07.2025

¶17

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) confine their prayer that representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondent authorities and therefore the respondents may be directed to consider his/her pending representation within stipulated time period.

¶18

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that the issue of regularization of daily wager/contract

¶19

¶20

employees have been decided by order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.397 of 2025 and the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.415 of 2025. Therefore, the petitioner(s) are not entitled for regularization, however, the respondents are ready to verify the service records of the petitioner(s) and to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as in the light of orders passed in Writ Appeal Nos.397 of 2025 and 415 of 2025. The case of petitioner(s) for regularization in service requires verification of documents and as such the authority concerned will take a decision on the representation of the petitioner(s) within stipulated time frame in accordance with law keeping in view the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two Writ Appeals i.e. WA Nos.397 of 2025 and 415 of 2025.

¶21

3. Be that as it may, since the representation of the petitioner(s) is under consideration before the authorities concerned and the petitioner also wants to pursue the representation, the respondents No.2&3 are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner(s) in accordance with law on its own merits with an objective manner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

4. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶24

inder

P Ananda Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Ananda Rao v. Union of India

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

Mrs. Punam Sarita Lakra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chitrasen Kulmitra Vs Arun Dev Gautam (Ips)

Narendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Kathaute Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Bhawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Gairarey Vs the Union of India