Shiv Shankar Tiwari v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 999 of 2019
1. Shiv Shankar Tiwari S/o Late Ram Rup Tiwari, Aged About 67 Years Conductor, Bilaspur Depot, R/o Village - Amav, Post Atraila, P.S. Chakghat, Tahsil Teondhar, District Rewa Madhya Pradesh.
2. Ram Kumar Sharma S/o Late Jhabbu Lal Sharma, Aged About 63 Years Conductor, Raipur Depot II, R/o Ram Kumar Sharma, Brahman Para, Gobra, Nawapara, Rajim, P.S. Nawapara (Gobra), District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Dhiraj Singh Tomar S/o Late Kedar Singh Tomar, Aged About 58 Years Conductor, Jagdalpur Depot, And Baloda Bazar Depot, R/o Dhiraj Singh Tomar, Village And Post Thana, Tehsil Ambah, P.S. Ambah, District Muraina Madhya Pradesh.
4. Lagni Sayar W/o Late Dularu Ram Sayar Aged About 57 Years Driver, Baloda Bazar Depot, R/o 135 Bargad No. 9, Baloda Bazar, P.S. Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Headquarter, Through Its Managing Director, Old PHQ Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Civil Line, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Head Office Habibganj, Bhopal (Madhya999 Pradesh).
---Respondents For Petitioners :
Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board / 0 2 /201
1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an identical issue came up before the Coordinate Bench on 15.11.2017 and the same has been disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 and it was further directed that respondent No.2 shall on receipt the representation take a prompt decision.
2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that present writ petition also may be disposed of in similar terms as the grievance raised by the petitioners is identical.
-23. Given the facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the prayer made by the petitioners to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present writ petition also is disposed of in similar terms as has been passed in the WPS No. 6005/2017 vide order dated 15.11.2017. Accordingly, the petitioners are at liberty to move a representation before the respondent No.2, before whom the claim of the previous set of petitions were under process.
4. On submission of the representation by the petitioners, the respondents shall as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months shall verify and if the case of the petitioners are similarly to the previous set of petitions or the petitioners in the case of WPS No. 6005/2017, their claim shall also be processed along with the similarly placed persons, whose writ petitions have already been decided vide orders dated 04.07.2011 and 16.12.2012 in WPS No. 6510/2009 and WA No. 419/2011.
5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of at the motion stage. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotij