1 2025:CGHC:33277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7138 of 2025 1 - P Ananda Rao S/o Shri P Trinath Rao Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Servant, Hostel - Sirpur, Nit, Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director National Institute Of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar National Institute Of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sharad Mishra, on behalf of Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General. For Respondents No.2&3 : Shri Prashant Singh on behalf of Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.07. 202 5 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) confine their prayer that representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondent authorities and therefore the respondents may be directed to consider his/her pending representation within stipulated time period. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that the issue of regularization of daily wager/contract Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.16 15:26:18 +0530 2 employees have been decided by order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.397 of 2025 and the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.415 of 2025. Therefore, the petitioner(s) are not entitled for regularization, however, the respondents are ready to verify the service records of the petitioner(s) and to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as in the light of orders passed in Writ Appeal Nos.397 of 2025 and 415 of 2025. The case of petitioner(s) for regularization in service requires verification of documents and as such the authority concerned will take a decision on the representation of the petitioner(s) within stipulated time frame in accordance with law keeping in view the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid two Writ Appeals i.e. WA Nos.397 of 2025 and 415 of 2025. 3. Be that as it may, since the representation of the petitioner(s) is under consideration before the authorities concerned and the petitioner also wants to pursue the representation, the respondents No.2&3 are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner(s) in accordance with law on its own merits with an objective manner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder