Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP (S) No. 665 of 2017 Mahesh Chandra Gupta, S/o late Shri M.L.Gupta, aged about 67 years, R/o Flat No.201, Inner Court Apartment, Sun City Colony, Airport Road, Bhopal (M.P.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Hindustan Steelworks Const. Ltd., through its Chairman-cumManaging Director, 5/1, Commercial Road, Hastings, Kolkata (W.B.)

2. Sr. Executive (Personnel), Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Nirman Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents Shri Vinod Deshmukh and Shri N.Naha Roy, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 08/02/2017 1.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal No.185 of 2007 (Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. & another v. Smt. Kiran Sahu & others) decided on 3.2.2015 and, therefore, in light of above judgment, he may be permitted to make representation before the competent authority and the same may be directed to be decided within the specific time

frame.

2.

Per contra, Shri Vinod Deshmukh and Shri N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has already been paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.7,87,836/- & Rs.18,758/-, gratuity amount of Rs.303013.84/-, leave encashment to the tune of Rs.2,13,841/-, CPF amounting to Rs.8,87,179.50 and backlog salary amounting to Rs.1,17,966/-. He would submit that the balance backlog salary amounting to Rs.40,712/- has been paid, he would further submit that the petitioner's representation would be decided within a period of two months.

3.

Be that as it may, if the petitioner files representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances, it is expected from the authority concerned to decide the same in the light of judgment of this Court in W.A. No.185/2007 decided on 3.2.2015 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge L