Ganeshram Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 333 Chatt

                                  1

                                                                 NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                Writ Petition (S) No. 369 of 2016


     Ganeshram Nishad S/o Kamluram Nishad, Aged about 49
     years, R/o Kilapara Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and Distt.
     Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ­­­Petitioner

                                 Versus



1.   State     of   Chhattisgarh       through   the   Secretary,
     Department      of    Agriculture,      Mahanadi        Bhawan,
     Mantralaya, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur,
     Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.   Collector,       Rajnandgaon,        Distt.     Rajnandgaon,
     Chhattisgarh.

3.   Area      Manager,     Surgi/Agriculture          Department,
     Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

                                                   ­­­Respondents

For Petitioner :­ Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State :­ Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board [Through Video Conferencing]

19/01/2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that petitioner is working on the post of Tractor

Driver with respondent No. 3 since 03/07/1992 and

he has not been regularized though similarly

situated employees have been regularized for which

he has already made representation.

2. Learned State counsel would submit that

petitioner's representation, if any, will be

decided in accordance with law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length.

4. Be that as it may, respondents are directed to

consider and decide petitioner's representation

which he has made claiming regularization within

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Petitioner is at liberty to file

relevant judgments of the Supreme Court along with

representation for consideration. It is made clear

that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the matter.

5. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ

petition stands disposed of. No cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet