1 2025:CGHC:35800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2089 of 2021 1 - Vimal Kumar Sahu S/o Ishwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Rawabhatha , Police Station Khamtarai , Tahsil Dharsinwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Poshanlal Sahu S/o Dukalharam Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 6, Subh Vihar Colony, Sector 3 Shivnanad Nagar , Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtari, Tahsil And District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Late Kanhaiya Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Sahu Para Purana Basti , Urla Police Station Urla , Tahsil Dharsinwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Environmental And Urban Development Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , New Raipur , Police Station Rakhi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Urban Planning And Development, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation , Birgaon, District Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on the post of Peon at Rawabhatha on 07.03.1996; petitioner No. 2 was appointed as part- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.29 12:08:18 +0530 2 time Panchayat Secretary at Urla on 01.08.2001 and petitioner No. 3 was appointed on the post of Peon at Urla on 12.11.1998. He would contend that Municipal Council, Birgaon came into existence in the year 2003 and a notification was also issued in this regard and thereafter direction was issued by the State Government on 20.03.2003 to absorb the services of the petitioners, but till date no action has been taken. He would contend that the services of other employees have been absorbed by respondent No.3 and thus, action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioners. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 3. Mr. Satish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioners were daily rated employees and pursuant to an order issued by the State Government on 22.09.2010 their services were discontinued and at present they have been engaged by the placement agency, therefore, they have no right to claim absorption. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the contention made by Mr. Satish Gupta. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective Advocates and specific prayer made by Mr. Bharat Rajput, this petition, 3 at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make representation(s) before respondent No. 3 within a period of 15 days and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation(s) so made by the petitioners expeditiously strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti