Ravindra Kumar Bhoi vs Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing ... on 6 March, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ravindra Kumar Bhoi vs Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing ... on 6 March, 2017

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

                                              -1-


                                                                                NAFR
                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                           WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1104 OF 2017
     Ravindra Kumar Bhoi, S/o Late Shri Digrilal Bhoi, aged about 33 years, R/o
     Village- Butipara, Post- Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                         Versus
     1.   Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Through Its President,
     Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, 22, Anand Nagar, Raipur, Distt.
     Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
     2.   Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, 22,
     Anand Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
     3.   State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General Administration
     Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
     4.   The Secretary, Food Supplies And Consumer Protection, State Of
     Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G)
                                                                   ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Govt. Advocate and Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/03/2017

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioners' case is not being considered by respondent authorities for regularization whereas, he is working with the Corporation for more than 10 years and is entitled for regularization and, therefore, he may be permitted to make representation before the competent authority and the same may be directed to be decided within the specific time frame.

2. Be that as it may, if the Petitioner files representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, it is expected from the authority concerned to decide the same in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others [2006 (4) SCC 1] and in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation of the Petitioner. -2-

3. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned authority would be at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

                                                                      (P. Sam Koshy)
/sharad/                                                                   Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court