Shweta Rathore v. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3371 of 2018 Shweta Rathore D/o Shri Baldev Prasad Rathore, W/o Shri Alok Rathore, Aged About 29 Years Occupation Service, Office Assistant Grade Iii, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited C/o Shro Kholbhara Rathore, Ward No. 12, Chitarpara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Office Of Chief Engineer (Generation), Through Its Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, 2x500 Mw, Marwa, Village Tendubhatha, Post Sarkhon, District Jangir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. The Superintending Engineer, (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, 2x500 Mw, Marwa, Village Tendubhatha, Post Sarkhon, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner:

Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. GA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 27/04/2018 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 28.07.2011, 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. While considering that the petitioner's claim for withdrawal of increment shall also be examined and appropriate order be passes. 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