Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation ( Parivahan Prabhag )

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2732 of 2018

1. Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Koduram Yadav aged about 58 years Helper, Durg Depot R/o Kelabadi Durg Police Station Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. Gajendra Singh S/o Late Shri Gokul Singh, aged about 63 years Conductor, Raipur Depot No. 1 , R/o Infront of Ram Mandir, Laxmi Ganj, Lashkar, Gwalior, District Gwalior, ( M.P.)

3. Smt. Meena Behara W/o Late Manbhanjan Behara, aged about 52 years Driver, Jagdalpur Deport, R/o New Bus Stand Road, Back Side of Ashoka Hotel Ward No. 22, Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

4. Smt. Kara Bai , W/o Late Budheshwar Meri, aged about 56 years Cleaner, Raigarh Depot, V R S 2003, R/o Ward - 12, Bhojpur Baigin Bandhan Champa Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Parivahan Prabhag), through Its Managing Director Shastri Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh.s

2. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, through Its Managing Director, Head Office Habibganj, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). ---Respondents For petitioner :

Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State :

Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/04/2018 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/- (P. Sam Koshy) Pawan JUDGE