Santosh Kumar Gairarey Vs the Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.16 15:27:12 +0530

¶5

WPS No. 7885 of 2025

¶6

1 - Santosh Kumar Gairarey S/o Shri B.P. Gairarey, Aged About 58 Years Occupation- Assistant Grade- IV, Electronics And Communication Engineering, NIT, Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The 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)

¶10

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

¶11

... Respondent(s) 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.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

16.07.2025

¶15

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.

¶16

2

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶21

inder

Santosh Kumar Gairarey v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Gairarey v. the 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

P Ananda Rao Vs Union of India