Prashant Yadav v. The Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 4469 of 2015 Prashant Yadav S/o Late Shri Sarju Ram Yadav, aged about 35 years, Occupation Unemployed, R/o behind Police Line Shantinagar, Bhilai-3, P.S. Bhilai-3, Civil and Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited through its Director General Manager (HRD), Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents :

Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 22.01.2016 The petitioner through the instant writ petition has challenged the order dated 03.08.2015 whereby it has been held that the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment shall be considered as and when vacancy arises and the recruitment process is initiated. The said order has been passed in the light of the direction given by this Court in an earlier round of litigation in W.P. (S) No. 6483 of 2014 dated 28.01.2015.

2.

The respondents have filed an affidavit of the Managing Director Shri Anoop Kumar Garg on 10th December 2015 whereby the Managing Director of the Respondent Company has categorically held that they would consider the case of the petitioner against the available posts in Class-III & IV category in Transmission and Distribution Companies in accordance with their seniority, entitlement and subject to their fulfilling of eligibility and other requisite criteria

for recruitment.

3.

In the light of the affidavit sworn by the Managing Director of the respondents Company, this Court is of the opinion that nothing further remains to be adjudicated in the present petition at this juncture. 4.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in the light of the undertaking given by the respondents in their affidavit with a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to their averments made in Paragraph-4 of the affidavit dated 10th December, 2015. Needless to mention that since the claim for grant of compassionate appointment made by the petitioner is of the year 2000, it is expected that the respondents shall take a prompt decision on his claim and decide the same at the earliest.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Bhola