Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Kumar Rathore vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation ... on 27 April, 2018
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3392 of 2018
Prakash Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Baldev Prasad Rathore, Aged
About 37 Years Occupation Service, Office Assistant Grade - Iii,
Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited R/o Village
Tendubhatha, Post Sarkhon, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.,
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (A
Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Managing
Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Through Its Chief Engineer,
Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, 2 500 Mw,
Marwa, Village Tendubhatha, Post Sarkhon, District Jangir Champa
Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3. The Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation
Company Limited, 2 500 Mw, Marwa, Village Tendubhatha, Post
Sarkhon, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 27/04/2018
1. The limited grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition is that though the petitioner has been granted appointment by the respondents under the Chhattisgarh State Rehabilitation Scheme and he had assumed his duty on 26.09.2012, till date the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents for regularization in spite of the petitioner's having all the eligibility requirements.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of appointment of the petitioner itself reflects that the case of the petitioner was to be considered for regularization after two years of satisfactory service which he has already achieved and his annual confidential report does not reflect any adverse entry till date.
3. Given the facts, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 & 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of regularization in accordance with the scheme by virtue of which he was appointed. While considering that the petitioner's claim for withdrawal of increment shall also be examined and appropriate order be passes. It is ordered accordingly. Let this exercise be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of his entitlement. The Authorities would be at liberty to decide the claim of the petitioner purely on merits as per the rules and guidelines governing the field.
Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit