1 2025:CGHC:23170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3453 of 2025 1 - Omprakash Banjare S/o Late Shri Mayaram Banjare Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post- Telikot, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Its President, 22 Anand Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, 22 Anand Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is not being considered by respondent authorities for regularization whereas, he is working with the Corporation for VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.11 19:36:00 +0530 2 more than 10 years and is entitled for regularization and, therefore, he may be permitted to make representation before the competent authority and the same may be directed to be decided within the specific time frame. 2. Be that as it may, if the petitioner files representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, it is expected from the authority concerned to decide the same, without being influenced by the earlier order passed by this Court and also in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jaggo v. Union of India and others” passed in SLP(C) No. 5580 of 2024 etc. and in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner. 3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority would be at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved