Chowa Ram Dubey And ORS v. The State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1340 of 2015
1. Chowa Ram Dubey S/o Late Bhuvan Lal Dubey Aged About 59 years Resident Of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhattapara, Tahsil- Bhattapara, District - Balaudabazar- Bhattapara (Chhattisgarh)
2. Rajendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Manaharan Singh Aged About 59 Years Resident Of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhattapara, TahsilBhattapara, District- Balaudabazar- Bhattapara (Chhattisgarh)
3. Jhadu Ram Baghel S/o Late Agindhar Baghel Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Nagar Palika Parishad, Bhattapara, Tahsil- Bhattapara, District- Balaudabazar- Bhattapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration & Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantalaya, New Raipur, Police Station - Rakhi, Civil & Revenue District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. The Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, Directorate, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Municipal Council Bhattapara, Through The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Bhattapara, District- Balaudabazar- Bhattapara (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondent/State :
Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 20/04/2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were working in erstwhile M.P.S.R.T.C., however after creation of the
State of Chhattisgarh a separate Road Transport Corporation has not been constituted in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, their 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 and the respective cases of the petitioners were also recommended, however the decision has not yet been taken and the petitioners are losing seniority, pay scale etc.
2. Learned counsel would further submit that for the present, the petitioners would confine their prayer for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 The Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, Directorate, New Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) to take a decision on the representations 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 & others1, Abdul Hakim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others2, Uttam Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others3, Raju Pandey & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others4, Nandkumar Vaishnav & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others5 and Chandrayan Singh Thakur & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others6.
WP (S) No.5521/2010 WP (S) No.473/2013 WP (S) No.476/2013 WP (S) No.1220/2013 WP (S) No.1458/2013 WP (S) No.2128/2013
3. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event petitioners submit fresh representations before respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks, the said authority shall consider and decide petitioners' representations 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 date of submission of representations.
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. JUDGE ashu