1 2025:CGHC:10598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1264 of 2019 1 - Sunder Singh Sahu S/o Late Moji Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Shri Ram Nagar, Near Shri Ram Mandir, Ward No. 9, Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Adv. For Respondents : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, PL (Hon’ble shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 04/03/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief :- “i. Quash / set aside order dated 1-8-2014 passed by the respondent No. 3. ii. direct the respondents to reconsider/consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.03.10 10:40:44 +0530 2 iii. Any other relief which this Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that, the petitioner was working as daily wage employee in the respondent department since 1-6-1989 to 28-3-2000. Subsequently, he was retrenched, and again he was taken into employment since 2008, since then, he is still continuously working with the department, but he has not been regularized. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to file fresh representation for his regularization before the concerned authorities, therefore, this petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner for filing fresh representation and the respondent authorities may be directed to decide the same expeditiously. He also submits that, the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 1-8-2014 passed by the Executive Engineer (P.W.D.), Kanker may be set aside, whereby the petitioner has been deprived from regularization. 3. In reply, learned State counsel submits that, since the petitioner is working with the respondent department, therefore, if the petitioner files representation for redressal of his grievance, then it would be considered and decided in accordance with applicable law and rules. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 5. In the instant case, as per the impugned memo (Annexure P-5) dated 1-8-2014, the petitioner worked as daily wage employee from 1-6-1989 to 28-3-2000 with the respondent department. Subsequently, he was retrenched and then again, he was taken in employment in the year 2008, since then, he is working with the department. 6. Having considered the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance as raised in this petition, within a period of one month from today, and if such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent authorities within a further period of 90 days after filing of the representation. 7. Since this Court has not considered merit of the case, therefore, no opinion is being expressed on memo dated 1-8-2014 (Annexure P- 5). However, it is observed that, if the respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with applicable law and rules, then the impugned memo Ex. P- 5 dated 1-8-2014 shall not come in the way to consider the representation filed afresh by the petitioner. 8. With the above directions and observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Pathak/- Judge