Daroga Singh v. Hindustan Steel Works Const. Ltd And ANR.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP No. 7633 of 2006

1. Daroga Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Harihar Singh, P.No.40043, Assistant Manager (CO), Deptt. Utilities, Zone No.531, Hindustan Steelworks Const. Ltd., Bhilai Unit, R/o Qr.No.10-A, Street 32, Sector - 5, PO Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Hindustan Steelworks Const. Ltd. (HO), through its Chairman-cumManaging Director (A Govt. of India Undertaking), 5/1, Commisariat Road, Hastings, Kolkata - 22.

2. Hindustan Steelworks Const. Ltd. (Local Unit at Bhilai), through its General Manager, PO Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG).

---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondents Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 04/01/2017 1.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal No.185 of 2007 (Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. & another v. Smt. Kiran Sahu & others) decided on 3.2.2015 and, therefore, in light of above judgment, he may be

permitted to make representation before the competent authority and the same may be directed to be decided within the specific time frame.

2.

Per contra, Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has already been paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.44,128/-, gratuity amount of Rs.2,03,763/-, leave encashment to the tune of Rs.83,196/-, CPF amounting to Rs.6,26,054=66 and backlog salary amounting to Rs.1,40,000/-. He would submit that the balance backlog salary amounting to Rs.1,01,099/- has not been paid due to non-vacation of company quarter by the petitioner, however, he would further submit that the petitioner's representation would be decided within a period of two months.

3.

Be that as it may, if the petitioner files representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances, it is expected from the authority concerned to decide the same in the light of judgment of this Court in W.A. No.185/2007 decided on 3.2.2015 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. 4.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- Judge Gowri Prashant Kumar Mishra