Chattisgarh High Court
Malikram Dadsena vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 April, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2275 of 2022
• Malikram Dadsena, S/o Late Maniram Nirmalkar, Aged about 60 years,
working as Section Writer, in the Office of Collector, Raipur, R/o Mathpara,
Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue &
Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
05/04/2022
1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition is for a direction
to the respondents to consider his case for regularization.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on
25.01.1991 on the post of Section Writer on temporary basis in the
office of the District Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.) i.e. respondent
No. 02 and since then he is continuously working on the said post of
Sector Writer. However, the authorities have till date not considered
the claim of the petitioner for regularization. He submits that similarly
placed persons in the other districts have already been considered
and regularized also.
3. He further submits that similarly placed persons on their being not
regularized, had approached this court vide WPS No.1959 of 2014
(Suraj Prasad Soni & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.) which
was allowed by this court on 19.11.2015 directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization as
Section Writers.
4. He further brought to the notice of the Court, the orders passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.102 of 2010 which
was also allowed and disposed of on 08.01.2010 wherein also
similarly placed persons working in the State of Madhya Pradesh had
approached the High Court for regularization. The decision of the MP
High Court dated 08.01.2010 allowing the writ petition was also
challenged in Writ Appeal No.1202 of 2010 which also stood
dismissed by the Division Bench on 15.12.2010 affirming the order
passed by the Single Bench wherein a bunch of writ petitions were
decided and disposed of.
5. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh had also gone to the extent of
directing the respondents to consider regularization of Section Writers
on the post of over Lower Division Clerk (Assistant Grade III).
6. Given the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court in WPS No.1959
of 2014 and also the two judgments of MP High Court in Writ Petition
as well as Writ Appeal, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice
would serve if this petition is also disposed of in similar terms with a
direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for
regularization on the post of Section Writer, if not, on any other post
corresponding to the post of Section Writer at the earliest preferably
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of
representation of the petitioner.
7. It is ordered that the petitioner shall apprise the respondents in this
regard by filing a detailed representation supported with all relevant
documents including the judgments which have been rendered by this
Court as also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh so far as similarly
identically placed persons are concerned.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Vasant
