1 2025:CGHC:24534 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4635 of 2025 1 - Pawan Kumar Komre S/o Hemendra Kumar Komre Aged About 38 Years Posted And Working As Jalwahak At Naveen Adivasi Balak Ashram Ghasitola, Block- Mohla, Distt. - Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 2 - Raju Lal S/o Ramayan Singh Aged About 42 Years Posted And Working As Choukidar At Naveen Adivasi Balak Ashram Ghasitoal, Block- Mohla, Distt. - Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 3 - Rambai W/o Tirath Ram Aged About 50 Years Posted And Working As Rasoiya At Adivasi Kanya Ashram Paurkheda, Block- Mohla, Distt. - Mohla - Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Shailendra Kumar Tekam S/o Narad Singh Tekam Aged About 39 Years Posted And Working As Choukidar At Sanyukt Ashram Butakasa, Block- Chowki, Distt. - Mohla- Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 5 - Rajim Say S/o Saradhu Ram Aged About 39 Years Posted And Working As Paniwala At Pre. M. Adivasi Balak Chhatrawas Urwahi, Block- Mohla, Distt. - Mohla- Manpur - Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Director Tribal Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Block Education Officer Mohla, Distt. Mohla- Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). 5 - Block Education Officer Block Chowki, Distt. Mohla - Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For State : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.06. 202 5 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are appointed as daily wage employees in the year 1998 and still working as daily wage employee. He further submits that as per the Circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government, the petitioners are entitled for their regularization. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition may be disposed of directing respondent authority/competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners with regard to their regularization in accordance with the law and in the light of Circular dated 05.03.2008 and other subsequent Circulars applicable to the case of the petitioners. 2. Learned State Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioners. 3. In view of the above submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, without going on merits of the case, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent authority/competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners with regard to their regularization in accordance with the law and in the light of Circular dated 05.03.2008 and other subsequent Circulars applicable to the case of the petitioners within an outer limit of ‘90 days’ from today. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder