Raghavendra Kumar Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3146 of 2018 Raghavendra Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Harishchandra Rathore, Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade - 3, Office Of Superintending Engineer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (An Enterprises Of Government Of Chhattisgarh), Through Its Managing Director, Dagania, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Holding Company Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production Company Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner:

Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 19/04/2018 1.

The limited grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition is that though the petitioner has been granted appointment by the respondents under the Chhattisgarh State Rehabilitation Scheme and he had assumed his duty on 26.09.2012, till date the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents for regularization in spite of the petitioner's having all the eligibility requirements.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of appointment of the petitioner itself reflects that the case of the petitioner was to be considered for regularization after two years of satisfactory service which he has already achieved and his annual confidential report does not reflect any adverse entry till date.

3.

Given the facts, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 & 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of regularization in accordance with the scheme by virtue of which he was appointed. It is ordered accordingly. Let this exercise be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

4.

This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of his entitlement. The Authorities would be at liberty to decide the claim of the petitioner purely on merits as per the rules and guidelines governing the field.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit