Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Raj Kumar vs The Chief Manager (Mining), South ... on 13 February, 2019

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                                1
                                                                                      NAFR
                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 926 OF 2019
             Raj Kumar S/o Chhagan Singh Aged About 53 Years Working As
             Trammer Cat Iv Rajgamar Colliery, R/o House No. 58, Dhengurdih,
             Korkoma Tehsil Pali District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                          ...Petitioner(s)
                                                Versus
          1. The Chief Manager (Mining), South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Secl)
             Rajgamar Sub Area Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
          2. Area Manager South Estern Coalfields Limited (Secl) Sub Area Rajgamar
             Project Post Office Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.
          3. Assistant Manager Personal Secl Sub Area Rajgamar Project Post Office
             Korba, Districi Korba, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13.02.2019

1. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in this petition is that, on health ground on account of injuries sustained during work he had requested for grant of surface duty instead of being posted in an underground mines.

2. According to the petitioner, initially he was granted surface duty, but later on he has been sent back again for duty in the underground mines. The petitioner further submits that he has made representation to the respondent No.1 for redressal of his grievance for being posted in a surface area but no decision has been taken by the respondents on his representation.

3. Given the aforesaid facts, let the respondent No.1 take a decision on the representation of the petitioner so far as his request for being posted in a surface area within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder