Niaz Ali v. Union Of India And ORS.
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
v .t<«-^-..
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.4^^/2005 (S.B.) PETITIONER Niaz Ali, S/o. Shri Late Akbar Ali,aged about 52 years, R/o.
3C/35/8 Bhilai Nagar/P.O.
Bhilai, Distt.-Durg (C.G.), Ex.
i Employee of HSCL, P.No.
50228, Sr. Driver.
VERSUS
1) Union of India, Through : Secretary, Ministry of Iron and Steel, Parliament House, New Delhi.
2) Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.
(A Public Sector Enterprise), through its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Kolkata.
Hindustan Steel Works \\%$^iS^ Construction Ltd.
(Local Unit at Bhilai) through General Manager, P.
O.
Bhilai, Distt.
Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND ANY OTHER WR1T/ DIRECTION/ORDER.
K ./ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SB-.HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No.2466 of 2005 PETITIONER P.M. Shukla
Versus
Union of India and others Writ Petition No.24^7^1>f 2W5 N3ETITIONER ^^{lf^g%ffW- Nayak l"":::'*y:ft ^,^;^1%-^;:^ jj|^%j?^.- '
- - ~--/ ~" ~ ^r ^|P:
j V jj Union of India and others No.2468 of 2005 PETITIONER ^^^ci yi^ Prayag Choubey
Versus
Union of India and others Writ Petition No.4730Lof 2005;
PETITIONER Sukaloo Ram
Versus
RESPQNDENTS Union of India and others
"Y ^:.' ^'
And Writ Petition No.4839_of2005 PETIT10NER Niaz Ati
Versus
Union of India and others WRIT PET1TIONS UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w lil. A Iff'lffs 'Pandey, Advocate forThiye|»»r|grs.
N.K. Vyas, Assistant Solicitor Gen€ rft|g?ynionof India. >?Shri Vinod beshmy ,Advocate for RespoW^ft,fe ^'^^/^\f^\{^/!v\_ .
.sg^lJP" -|.:
,^C^j(i ^^i:' cMt J':\ '';i'y:rfP'
,€l;!;^ Ar3:_$LU^S£Ji!a2L^.,»----.^---.-.-.--.-.-.-.----.------..-.d "^s IS» fg% .2014) NAVIN SINHA,ACTIN^|^|^ 'I.K-?" ^^?';^':^.^ 1.
Heard Leaiy y^^M.i^S^ @ n^©(iilfor the Petitioners and the Respondents.
^^^ ^jRT^ 2.
Atthe outsetleave is soughttowithdrawtheapplications. 3.
The writ applications are dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice sunita