L.S. Bais v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation(Parivahan Prabhag),

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1370 of 2020 1.

L.S. Bais S/o Late Shri Santosh Singh Bais Aged About 59 Years Assistant Grade-Ii, Baloda Bazar Depot, Presently Working In The Office Of Women And Child Dev. Department, Raipur, R/o H.No. 3/118, D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2.

Manohar Pravin John S/o Late Shri Samuel John Aged About 70 Years Cashier1st, Divisional Office, Raipur, R/o Near Little Flower English School, Katora Talab, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3.

Anil Kumar John S/o Late Philimon John Aged About 71 Years U.D.C., Divisional Office, Raipur, R/o Near Katora Talab, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1.

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation(Parivahan Prabhag), Headquarter, Through Its Managing Director, Old Phq Bhawan, Civil Line, Police Station Civil Line, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2.

Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Head Office Habibganj, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :

Mr. Vivek Sharma on behalf of Mr.

Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 02.03.2020

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.

3. 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/- (Goutam Bhaduri) yasmin/Jyoti Judge