← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/868/2016disposed off

Gaurav Jain v. Food Corporation Of India

2016-04-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 868 of 2016 Gaurav Jain S/o Shri Prakash Chand Jain, Aged About 36 Years Partner Raj Garage, Raipur, R/o Bhaisthan, Raipur, Police Station Azad Chauk, Tahsil And District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Food Corporation Of India Through: The General Manager, ( Regional Office), Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. The Deputy General Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Vidhan Sabha Road, Mowa, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri S.C.Verma, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri B.P.Gupta, counsel for the respondents on advance copy. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 29/04/2016 Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved on account of recovery made from the petitioner on the ground that the payments made to the petitioner was in excess because the payments have been made measuring the distance more than the shortest route.

2.

Learned counsel for respondents refers to Clause 20 of the agreement of the parties to submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising dispute before the Grievance Redressal Committee at the zonal level where the petitioner may submit his dispute and if he submits his dispute, the same shall be decided by the competent authority.

3.

In view of existence of alternative remedy to the petitioner, it would be proper to direct the petitioner that at the first instance, he may get his dispute referred to the concerned Committee as per clause 20 of the agreement.

4.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off. In case, such dispute is raised by the petitioner before the Committee, the Committee shall do well to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision, petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti