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 15]

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding ... on 24 January, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                       1

                                                                           NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Writ Petition (S) No. 4239 of 2017

        Rajendra Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Mohan Lal Mishra, aged about 39 years,
        R/o Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg, C.G.

                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

     1. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. Through the Managing
        Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya Raipur (C.G.)

     2. The Junior Engineer (Transmission and Maintenance) Power Distribution
        Company, Division Durg, District Durg(C.G.)
                                                    --- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24/01/18

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made several representations for appointment on compassionate ground but it has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities till date, being aggrieved against which this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Per contra, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that the petition suffers from delay and laches and as such the petition cannot be entertained at this stage.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Be that as it may, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on their own merits expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner would also be at liberty to make an 2 additional representation, if any.

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

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka