Chattisgarh High Court
L. P. Gour vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 August, 2015
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2960 of 2015
• L. P. Gour S/o Late Shri Moti Lal Gour, Age About 59 years Presently
Posted As Assistant Revenue Inspector At State Urban Development
Agency, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) R/o
Shivanand Nagar, Near Sai Mandir, P.S.- Khamtarie, Raipur District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Transport,
Mahanadi Bhavan, Village Rakhi, New Raipur, District- Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
2. Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhavan,
Village-Rakhi, New Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration & Development, Mahanadi
Bhavan, Village-Rakhi, New Raipur, District-Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4. Commissioner, Urban Administration & Development Department,
Directorate, Indrawati Bhavan, Village-Rakhi, New Raipur, District-Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
5. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Through Its Managing
Director, C.I.D.C., Shastri Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Shri YS Thakur, Dy. AG for the State
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
14/08/2015
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C., however after creation of the State of Chhattisgarh a separate Road Transport Corporation has not been 2 constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, his services were placed in the control of respondent/Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short 'C.I.D.C.'). He would further submit that the State Government has issued number of circulars deciding to absorb services of the employees working in the erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C in various Corporation/Mandals in the State of Chhattisgarh and in furtherance of the said policy several employees have already been absorbed.
2. Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioner would confine his prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision on the representation pending before the said authority. He is restricting his prayer in view of the order passed by this Court in the matters of O.P. Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 1, Abdul Hakim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 2, Uttam Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others 3, Raju Pandey & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others 4, Nandkumar Vaishnav & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others5 and Chandrayan Singh Thakur & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others6.
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the petitioner submits fresh representation before the competent authority within a period of four weeks, the said authority shall consider and decide petitioner's representation in an objective manner keeping in view the circular issued by the State Government from time to time, as also the orders of absorption passed with respect to the similarly placed employees, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the 1 WP (S) No.5521/2010 2 WP (S) No.473/2013 3 WP (S) No.476/2013 4 WP (S) No.1220/2013 5 WP (S) No.1458/2013 6 WP (S) No.2128/2013 3 date of submission of representation.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prashant Kumar Mishra ashu