Santosh Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 1085 of 2019 Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Late Mohanlal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Hirapur, Ekta Nagar, Kotra Road, Raigarh, Police Station- City Kotwali, Civil & Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chairmen, Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Ltd., Daganiya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Executive Engineer, Circle Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. M/s. Info Sofdata Services (P) Ltd., F-2/ S-07, 2nd Floor, Bumbra Enclave, Hno.- 04, Sura Bhavan Area, South Park, Bistupur, Jamshedpur 831001 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.1 :
Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 :
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Judge Order On Board Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
20.06.2019 Heard 1.
The instant writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs : (i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the instant case.
(ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not terminate the petitioner agreement till completing its period of their agreement.
(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be issue a writ in nature of certiorari and quash the whole proceedings taken in pursuance for spot billing and collection of cheque.
(iv) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may also be provided to the petitioner. 2.
The short facts of this case are that the petitioner was discharging the work of meter reader and was under contract for last many years with the respondents, all of a sudden, the Respondent No. 2 & 3 have dispensed with the service of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing or show cause. It is further contended the respondents have decided to allot the work of meter reading to other person; thereby without giving any opportunity of hearing, service under agreement was terminated before the contractual period.
3.
The return on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 & 3 have been filed against whom the main grievance was agitated. The return purports that only on apprehension, this petition has been filed and it is further contended that the petitioner has been appointed afresh by an order dated 01.04.2019 which is filed as Annexure R-2/3. The letter purports that the directions have been given to Info Softdata Services Pvt. Ltd. who were assigned to perform the job of meter reading that the person who were earlier engaged in spot billing may be re-engaged. Pursuant thereto, the appointment letter dated 01.04.2019 has been issued by Info Softdata Services Pvt. Ltd. 4.
The petitioner having been so appointed, no further adjudication by this Court would be required as the main grievance of the petitioner was that his service was terminated prior to the agreement period. The petitioner having been appointed as per Annexure R-2/3, the relief sought by the petitioner stands redressed. No adjudication therefore is required by this Court as of now.
5.
The petition is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/- (P.R.Ramachandra Menon) (Goutam Bhaduri) Chief Justice Judge Ashok