1 2025:CGHC:10501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4381 of 2018  Ramji Korram S/o Shri Jhunuram, Aged About 47 Years Through Divisional Forest Officer, South Kondagaon, Forest Division, District Kondagaon Chhattisgah, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Narayanpur Forest Division, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh., District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Conservator Of Forest (Administration/ Non Gazetted) Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of regularization of petitioner like orders and also to issue regularization order within stipulated period, because it is pending since long. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.05 10:13:33 +0530 2 10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been working as a daily rated employee under the respondents since 1989. He would further submit that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer, South Kondagaon, Forest Division Kondagaon vide letter dated 24.02.2018, but till date, no action has been taken. He would pray that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no right to claim regularization as he is a daily rated employee and his appointment was contrary to the Constitutional mandate. He would further submit that the petitioner has been re-employed after scrutiny. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is still working as a daily rated employee since 1989; without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representation dated 13.04.2018 in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant