1 NAFR 2025:CGHC:14982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2092 of 2025 1 Bittan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Dile Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years Occupation Driver Under The Office Of Assistant Engineer, (Electrical Safety) And Assistant Electrical Inspector C.G. State, Sub Division Korba R/o 15 Block S.E.C.L. Colony Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Superintending Engineer (Electrical Safety) And Chief Electrical Inspector State Of C.G. Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 Executive Engineer (Electrical Safety) And Divisional Electrical Inspector C.G State, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 10:36:11 +0530 2 4 Assistant Engineer (Electrical Safety) And Assistant Electrical Inspector C.G. State, Sub Division Korba Room No. 22 To 25 Old Collectorate Bhawan Over The Rto Office, Rajgamar Road District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kavita Bansal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 28/03/2025 Heard. 1. Petitioners has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the petitioner services from the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of petitioner for regularization and regular pay scale on the post of Driver along with consequential benefits. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-5) within stipulated period of time in 3 light of the judicial verdict, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. Umadevi & ors, 2006 (4) SCC -1. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed vide order dated 02.03.2009 as Driver in the office of respondent No. 4 and since then he is continuously working on the said post. He also contended that the appointment was made by the Committee constituted for selection of the employees and therefore appointment of petitioner was after following due process of law. Petitioner is continuously working for more than 13 years, and therefore in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], petitioner is entitled for his regularization in services. Petitioner has already submitted representation in this regard also mentioning the Circular issued by the State Government in this regard dated 05.03.2008, however, till date no decision has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, direction be issued to Respondent No. 3 & 4 to take decision on the pending representation within specified time. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and further submits that the Circular issued 4 by the State Government as referred by the counsel for petitioner is with respect to the employees appointed on or before 1997. He however submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and only seeking direction to respondents to take decision on the pending representation, he is having no objection. If the representation is still pending consideration, it will be considered in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of relief sought for in this writ petition, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the representation submitted by petitioner is pending since 2024, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition at this stage is disposed of directing Respondent No. 3 & 4 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti